JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. A petition has been filed pursuant to the order dated 7.7.1992 praying therein to allow respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 to be transposed in the category of the petitioners and to allow them to make submission in support of the writ application. Accordingly, the prayer for transposition is allowed. 2. The petitioners in the present writ application have prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 26.3.1991 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, in Case No. 178/90 and the order dated 30.10.1990 passed by the Collector, Purnia in L.C. Appeal No. 87/90-91, whereby and whereunder the order dated 20.10.1989 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling Purnia, in case No. 76/81-82 /107/85-86 have been substantial1y modified. 3. In short, the case of the petitioners is that a land ceiling proceeding was started against one Khusai Yadav (grandfather of the petitioners). The father of the petitioners died in the year 1959 and the aforesaid landholder Khusai Yadav also died during the pendency of the proceeding in the year 1985, whereafter his heirs, including petitioners no. 1 to 4 were substituted under section 45C of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus .Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A draft statement was prepared in which 208.85 acres were shown as a total lands out of which 57.29 acres were allowed to be retained and the rests were proposed to be declared as surplus. An objection under section 10(3) of the Act was tiled in which it was claimed that 14.69 acres of land have been wrongly shown as the land of the land-holder as 9.44 acres of land though already been surrendered and thereafter acquired for Kosi Irrigation Project have also been wrongly included. Further, it was claimed that. 18.43 acres of land was transferred to other persons who were in effective possession of the same, in respect of which no enquiry under section 5 of the Act was made and these were treated as petitioner's lands. 4. Out of the above, 14.89 acres of land were, however, excluded and proceeding continued treating 193.96 acres belonging to the family of the petitioners. Besides this, in the objection, the correctness of the classification of the land was also challenged. The petitioners have also stated in the said objection petition that the units were also claimed on behalf of the daughters. Besides this, in the objection, the correctness of the classification of the land was also challenged. The petitioners have also stated in the said objection petition that the units were also claimed on behalf of the daughters. However, the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling allotted 5 units to the two wives, one Murli Yadav and petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely Bisheshwar Yadav and Rudra Narain Yadav. As regards the classification, the Additional Collector held that since no evidence was produced to show that there was no irrigation facility available, he would treat the land as Class III land. Further, as regards the claim of 2 units for the two daughters of Late Bankey Lal Yadav it was held that in the absence of the details as to how much -land is joint and how much is separate acquired by their father, no unit was granted to them. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been deprived of their right to exercise option in order to select proper land which was refused by the Additional Collector. Against the said order dated 20.10.1989 an appeal was filed before the Collector which was registered as Ceiling Appeal No.87/90-91. However, it is stated that no appeal or cross- objection was field on behalf of the State of Bihar or its officials against the said order allowing five units to the family of the land-holders. 5. The Collector, however, by an order dated 30.10.1990 passed in the said appeal declined to believe the testimony of the Doctor, who was again examined by him and declared two petitioners no.1 and 2 as minors by accepting the verification report of the Anchal Adhikari in relation to the age and thereby reduced the number of units. Against the said order of the Collector, the petitioners filed revision application before the Member, Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision Case No.178 of 1990, who also, vide resolution dated 26.3.1991 as contained in Annexure-I, rejected the revision application of the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard submitted that the Collector has committed serious error in disbelieving the medical evidence and the horoscope and the affidavit available on the record and has preferred to accept the age of the two petitioners as given in the verification report which was not based on any evidence at all. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard submitted that the Collector has committed serious error in disbelieving the medical evidence and the horoscope and the affidavit available on the record and has preferred to accept the age of the two petitioners as given in the verification report which was not based on any evidence at all. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the absence of appeal or cross- objection, the Collector in exercise of the appellate power had no jurisdiction in terms of Order XLI Rules 22 and 33 of the C.P.C. to reverse the finding in favour of the appellants. At best the State could only have supported the decree not only on the ground decided in favour of him hut also the ground decided against him. In my opinion, there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The Supreme Court in the case of Chaudhary Sahu v. State of' Bihar 1982 PLJ R (S.C.) 15 held as follows : "The first part of this rule authorises the respondent to support the decree not only on the grounds decided in his favour but also on any of the grounds decided against him in the court below. The first part thus authorises the respondent only to support the decree. It docs not authorise him to challenge the decree. If he wants to challenge the decree, he has to take recourse to the second part, that is, he has to file a cross-objection if he has not already filed an appeal against the decree. Admittedly, the State of Bihar had neither filed any appeal nor cross-object ion. Obviously therefore, on the strength of the firt part of sub-clause (1) of rule 22 of Order 41 the State of Bihar could only support the decree not only on the grounds decided in its favour but also on the grounds decided against it. The Commissioner, however, has set aside the finding in favour of the appellant on the strength of Order 41 rule 22(1). In our opinion, this he could not do." 7. Thus, the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Board of Revenue in this regard cannot be sustained and the same is fit to be quashed to that extent. 8. In our opinion, this he could not do." 7. Thus, the order of the Collector as well as the order of the Board of Revenue in this regard cannot be sustained and the same is fit to be quashed to that extent. 8. Learned counsel has also raised another point that both the daughter of Late Bankey Lal Yadav, namely, Smt. Chandravati and Kalavati Devi, arc legal heirs of their father as he had died in the year 1959 and as they were major on 9.9.1970, they should have been given two units. In this connection learned counsel also placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dwarika Singh V. The State of Bihar and others ( 1977 BBCJ 696 ) wherein their Lordships have held that the authorities have to consider the question of excess land after excluding the share of the daughter as on the death of the land-holder his interest would devolve on the son as well as the daughters. 9. It appears that both the appellate court as well as the revisional court have refused to grant separate unit to the two daughters of Late Bankey Lal Yadav on the ground that as the landholder Khusai Yadav, grandfather of the two daughters, namely Chandravati and Kalavati Devi was alive on the appointed date, they could not inherit the share in the landed property of their father. In my opinion, the courts below arc not correct in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. 10. It is well settled that a member of a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara School dying leaving behind his son and daughter the interest of the said member in the property would devolve on them and the ceiling area has to be determined with respect to the land held by living person. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the daughter also has an interest in the property of the pre-deceased father and she will be a land-holder. 11. I, therefore, remit back the matter to the Collector under the Act for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioners no.3 and 4 afresh which the Collector would decide after giving notice to all the persons concerned. 12. This application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. S. B. Sinha. J. - I agree.