Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against a resolution dated 22-4-1992 taken by the Member, Board of Revenue as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application ; the order dated 16-4-1985 passed by the collector, Sitamarhi in Land Ceiling Appeal No.26 of 1984 as contained in annexure-4 to the writ application, the order dated 16-4-1985 passed by the collector, Sitamarhi in Land Ceiling Appeal No.22 of 1984 as contained in annexure-5 thereto ; the order dated 14-8-1984 passed by the Additional collector, Sitamarhi in Land Ceiling case No.6 of 1973-74 as contained in annexure-2 thereto and order dated 29-8-1984 passed by the Additional collector, Sitamarhi in land ceiling case No.6 of 1973-74 as contained in annexure-3 thereto as also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant one more ceiling unit to the petitioner. 2. In view of the points involved in the application it is not necessary to notice the fact of the matter in great details. 3. It is, however, necessary to refer to the genealogical table for the family which reads thus :- 3_617_BLJ1_1994.htm 4. Ram Raj Prasad Narayan Singh died in the year 1976 leaving behind his widow Srimati Radba Devi and three sons, namely Sunil Kumar prasad Narayan Singh, Anil Kumar Prasad Narayan Singh and Randhir kumar Prasad Narayan Singh and seven daughters. 5. According to the petitioner at the time of death of late Ram Raj prasad Narayan Singh, all his three sons were majors. In the year 1977 the aforementioned Radha Devi also died. 6. A proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Lard) Act was initiated against Hans Raj prasad Narayan Singh. The said land holder died in the year 1971 and by an order dated 28-3-83 bis wife Smt Rameshwari Kuer was substituted in his place. Subsequently notice had also been sent to the sons of the aforementioned land holder. 7. The petitioner by reason of the impugned orders have been granted seven units. 8. Admittedly 6 units had been granted to the six sons of Shri Hansraj prasad Singh, namely Shri Ram Raj Pd Nr. Singh, Raghu Raj Pd. Nr. Singh, Deo Raj Pd Nr. Singh, Vijay Kumar Pd Nr. Singh, Jay Prakash Pd nr. Singh and Prithvi Raj Pd Nr. Singh and one unit has been granted to anil Kumar Pd. Nr. Singh. Admittedly 6 units had been granted to the six sons of Shri Hansraj prasad Singh, namely Shri Ram Raj Pd Nr. Singh, Raghu Raj Pd. Nr. Singh, Deo Raj Pd Nr. Singh, Vijay Kumar Pd Nr. Singh, Jay Prakash Pd nr. Singh and Prithvi Raj Pd Nr. Singh and one unit has been granted to anil Kumar Pd. Nr. Singh. The contention of the petitioner is that as Ram raj Pd Nr Singh died in the year 1976, both his sons, viz Sunil Kumar and anil Kumar being major at the time of the death, they were entitled to separate units. It has further been stated that Mst. Rameshwari Kuer, wife of late hansraj Prasad Narayan Singh was also entitled to one unit. 9. Mr. V. N. P Singh, learned, counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has raised two-fold contentions in support of this application. The learned counsel firstly submitted that as one unit had been granted to Anil Kumar Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh was also entitled to one unit and in any event, Mst. Rameshwari was also entitled to one unit. 10. Mr. Hemendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on instructions, however, has stated that a clerical error has occurred in the notification as the name of Anil Kumar had been mentioned in place of Sunil Kumar. Admittedly Anil Kumar was minor on 9-9-1970 and thus he was not entitled to any unit, He, therefore, submitted that in fact Sunil Kumar Singh is entitled to an unit in place of Anil Kumar Singh. 11. The question that the ceiling area hasa to be determined as on the appointed day is no longer res-integra. 12. Although Ramraj Pd. Singh died in the year 1976 he was entitled to allotment of one unit. Sunil Kumar was also thus entitled to allotment of one unit as he was major on 9-9-1970 in place of Anil Kumar Singh, 13. Similarly as Hansraj Prasad Singh died in the year 1971 he was also entitled to one unit and after his death his right title and interest devolved upon Mst. Rameshwari and her other sons. 14. In this view of the matter, the family would be entitled to allotment of eight units in all. Similarly as Hansraj Prasad Singh died in the year 1971 he was also entitled to one unit and after his death his right title and interest devolved upon Mst. Rameshwari and her other sons. 14. In this view of the matter, the family would be entitled to allotment of eight units in all. There cannot, however, be any doubt that the effect of inheritance of the estate by the heirs and legal representative of late hansraj Prasad Singh as also Ram Raj Prasad Narayan Singh must be considered in the light of section 18 of the said Act, 15. It would, thus, be open to the Collector to pass an appropriate order in terms of Sec.18 of the said Act so as to consider as to whether any land has become surplus at the hands of the heirs and legal representatives of Hansraj Pd. Mr. Singh and Ram Raj Pd. Nr. Singh who died in the year 1971 and in the year 1976, respectively. 16. In this view of the matter, this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbetore and with the aforementioned observations and directions. Application allowed.