Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 29-7-1992 passed by the Collector Madhepura in Land Ceiling Appeal No.9 of 1992-93, affirming the order dated 30th March, 1992 passed by the l. R. D. C. Madhepura in Land Ceiling Case No.1473/2 of 1976-1977 whereby the petitioners lands measuring an area 26.84 1/2 acres have been declared surplus. The said orders are respectively contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. 2. A Land Ceiling proceeding was initiated against Sri Krishna Kant prasad Yadav, the husband of the petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.9246 of 1992. His other heirs and legal representatives are petitioners in C. W. J. C. No.1317 of 1993. 3. The landholder inter alia pleaded that he gifted-7 acres of land to his married daughter who lunatic. The objection filed by the said land-holder was verified and thereafter the same was rejected. Steps for publication of the notification under Sec.11 (1) of the Land Ceiling act were directed to be taken on 27-1-1979. 4. However, no notification was issued till 14-2-1983. 5. Krishna Kant Prasad Yadav died on 21-6-1989 leaving behind his widow Lalita Devi, daughter (Sabita Devi) and two sons, Omanand Om and Atma Nand Kumar. After the death of Krishna Kant Prasad Yadav only Lalita Devi was substituted. After the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 was passed, an appeal was preferred by the Lalita Devi which was dismissed by reason of an order dated 29-7-1992 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 6. Mr. R. C. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that as Sabita Devi was major on 9-9-1970 she should have been allotted one unit. It is, however admitted that on 9-9-1970, the other heirs of the landholder were minors. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that as all the heirs and legal representatives of Sri Krishan Kant Prasad Yadav should have been substituted after his death and the petitioners were entitled to separate notices. 8. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been contended that notices had been served upon Lalita Devi who filed objection on 28-3-1992 and in fact a land ceiling proceeding being Land Ceiling no.3 of 1992-93 was started against her. She had been given reasonable opportunity of hearing as also an opportunity to adduce evidence. 9. 8. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been contended that notices had been served upon Lalita Devi who filed objection on 28-3-1992 and in fact a land ceiling proceeding being Land Ceiling no.3 of 1992-93 was started against her. She had been given reasonable opportunity of hearing as also an opportunity to adduce evidence. 9. It has further been stated that from the verification report, it appeared that the Lalita Devi was head of the family and thus notices were served on her on 20th September, 1991 in pursuance whereof she filed an objection on 16-3-1992. It was further stated that on 27-1-1992 when the order was passed, Lalita Devi filed attendance. 10. In this case, after the death of Krishan Kant Prasad Yadav, a fresh land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Lalita Devi. Admittedly on 9-9-I970her two sons were minors and thus they were not entitled to allotment of any unit. The question as to whether Sabita Devi who was major on 9-9-1970 should have been allotted a separate unit is a pure question of law and for that purpose, it cannot- be said that non-service of notice upon Sabita Devi caused any prejudice to her. In only event, as admittedly Sabita Devi was inasane ; she therefore could not have represented her self and could be represented only through her mother and natural guardian. 11. In this view of the matter,we are of the view that no prejudice has been caused by reason of non-service of notice upon all the heirs and legal representatives of Krishna Kant Prasad Yadav. 12. It is now well known that a married daughter is not entitled to a separate unit being not a member of family. 13. In that view of the matter, Sabita Devi was not entitled to allotment of a separate unit so far as the question of purported gift of the land to Lalita Devi is concerned, from a perusal of the order dated 30th March, 1992, it is evident that the said matter has been considered in a proceeding under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Aet by the Sub-divisional Officer Madhepura in his order dated 20-10-1978. 14. Tn this case the aforementioned order of the learned Sub-divisional officer dated 20-10-1978 is not in question. 15. 14. Tn this case the aforementioned order of the learned Sub-divisional officer dated 20-10-1978 is not in question. 15. So far as the grievance of the petitioner relation to non-substitution of all the heirs are concerned, admittedly no application had been filed by the petitioner in terms of Rule 55 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules in the prescribed form by the petitioner. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to file such an application within the prescribed period. 16. In any event, in view of our findings hereinbefore that the petitioners were not prejudiced in any manner, in our opinion this is not a fit case in which we should exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This application is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. Application dismissed.