Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners in this application have questioned an order dated 26.3.1989 passed in Revenue Case No.106 of 1985 as contained In Annexure-1 to the writ application whereby and whereunder he set aside the order dated 25.3.1985 passed by the District Collector gaya in Ceiling Appeal No.57 of 1982-83 as also the order dated 20th january, 1983, passed by the Additional Collector, in Ceiling Case No.44 of 1984-85/32 of 1976.77. 2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. A proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was initiated against the petititioners. 3. The Geneological Table of the Family of the petitioners is as follows :- "nareingh Narain Singh (deceased)Widow-Chandrakalakali Devi 85 years. Lalan Prasad Singh Kamla Prasad Singh 62 years 45 years. Damodar Kumar Raj Kumar Dili Kumari Manju Ranu 28 years.18 years 14 yrs. Devi Kumari 22 yn.16 yrs. Narain Das Shanktesh Das Mandvi Devi Mira Kumari sharma 22 yrs.20 yrs.15 yrs. .27 years unmarried married unmarried, married and the three daughters of Nareiagh Narain Singh. Agresam Devi Jinak Dulari Sabitri Devi (50)" (65) Devi (60) wife of Dhanrejan wife of Chandradhari wife of Awadhesh Singh. Singh. Prasad Singh. 4 Five units were allotted to the family of the petitioners and 37.83 acres of lands were declared surplus. The lands in question are admittedly situated in two villages, namely village Keyal and Kubari. 5. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order dated 12.8 1976 which was dismissed. A revision-petition was also filed by the petitioners before the Member Board of Revenue. The Additional Member Board of Revenue remanded the matter to the Collector under the Act. 6. By an order dated 20th January, 1983 the Additional Collector after remand rejected the claim of the petitioners about classification of the land allotment separate units for the married daughters, and claim for additional unit for additional members of the land holder. It also found that gift to Nanhku Singh was farzi. On appeal, the Collector of the district upheld the order of the Additional Collector. 7. The petitioners, thereafter filed a revision application before the member Board of Revenue and by an order dated 23.1.1987 the said revision application was dismissed. It also found that gift to Nanhku Singh was farzi. On appeal, the Collector of the district upheld the order of the Additional Collector. 7. The petitioners, thereafter filed a revision application before the member Board of Revenue and by an order dated 23.1.1987 the said revision application was dismissed. A writ petition was then filed against the said order in this Court which was registered as CWJC No.1207 of 1987 and by an order dated 7.5.1987 the matter was remanded to the Additional member Board of Revenue. In that order it was helds :- "the learned Additional Member Board of Revenue shall specifically deal with the grievances of the petitioners that the daughters had appeared and the Additional Collector committed an error of record when he observed that they did not appear to claim their separate unit. It will be open to the petitioners to raise any other point in support of their revision application. " 8. The learned Member Board of Revenue held that the daughters are entitled to shares of their father in terms of Hindu Succession Act and the lands held by them should he clubbed with their respective husbands. 9. The learned Additional Member Board of Revenue. However, upheld the order of the Collector of the District with regard to the classification of the land. He further rejected the contention that the nanhku Singh was not the farzidar of the petitioners. 10. Mr. Laxman Sharan Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had raised two-fold submissions in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that the lands in question has wrongly been classified as Class III land and the same should have been classified as class IV lands. 11. The learned counsel further submitted that the lands under settlements made in favour of Nanhku Singh prior to 22.10.1959 should be excluded. 12. From a perusal of the report as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application it appears that it has specifically been mentioned therein that no irrigation facility had been provided by the Central Government or any other irrigational facilities are available in respect of the land in question. 13. It was further held that no works has been established for irrigating the lands by setting up of works which may he operated by the electricity or a diesel. 13. It was further held that no works has been established for irrigating the lands by setting up of works which may he operated by the electricity or a diesel. It was further held that half of the lands of the laudholder yield only one Ravi Crop. It was further held that so far as half of the other lands are concerned, the yield of the crop is dependent upon rain water. 14. With regard to the claim of Nanhku Prasad Singh, my attention has been drawn to Annexure-5 from a perusal whereof it appears that except one sentenced report to the effect that the Nanhku Prasad Singh is farzidar of the petitioners, no other materials had been brought on records. 15. Mr. Raghib Ahsan, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, supported the order passed by the Member board of Revenue. 16. Mr. Raghib Ahsan has drawn my attention to the provisions of bengal Irrigation Works Act 1876 (Bengal Act III of 1876) Bihar Private irrigation Works Act, 1922) and the Bihar Irrigation Field Channels Act, 1965 and on the basis thereof, it had been contended that ahar or Pain would come within the purview of the definition of works. 17. Before proceeding to consider the submission of Mr. Ahrfan the relevant provisions of the aforementioned Act may be noticed. Sec.3 (1) of the Bengal Irrigation Act, 1876 , provides as follows :- "3 (1) (a) all canals, channels and reservoirs hitherto constructed, maintained or controlled by Government for the supply of storage of water, or which may hereafter be so constructed, maintained or controlled ; (b) all works embankments, structures, supply and escapechannels connected, with such canals, channels or reservoirs ; (c) all village channels as defined in Clause (3) of this section ; (d) any part of river, stream, lake, natural collections of water or natural drainage-channel to which the (State) Government of part II of this Act, or of which the water has been applied or used before the passing of this Act for the purpose of any existing canal ; (f) All lands on the banks of any canal as defined in Articles (1), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of this clause, which have been acquired by Government. " Sec.2 (2) of the Private Irrigation Works Act defines Irrigation works, 1922, which reads thus :- "irrigation Work" means any means or work constructed, altered or maintained artificially for the purpose of securing the supply, removal or storage of water for agricultural purposes) and included - (a) any part of any such means of works ; (b) any water course, channels or reservoir for the supply, removal or storage of water for (agricultural purposes) ; (c) any work embankment, structure of supply or escape channel connected with any such watercourse, channel or reservoir ; (d) a head-work, dam, weir-outlet, escape and sluice ; (e) a well which is or may be used for (agricultural purposes) ; 18. Sec.2 (1) of the Bihar Irrigation Field Channel Act, 1965, defines irrigation works are as follows :- " (1) irrigation work* means any work of irrigation or any system of such work, natural or articifical the construction, maintenance or improvement of which is finance wholly or partly by the State Government or a co-operative society or Zila parishad or a Panchayat Samiti or a Gram Panchayat and includes,- (i) all canals, channels, tanks, reservoirs, ponds, spring ponds, lakes and others natural collection of water or parts thereof all embankments, barrages, weirs, dams, guide banks, and all other works which are constructed, improved or maintained by the State Government or a co-operative society or a Zila Parishad or a Panchayat Samiti or a gram Panchayat for the purposes of irrigation ; and (ii) all lands used for the purpose of the work referred to in sub-clause (i) and all buildings machinery, fences, gates and other erections connected therewith on such lands ;" section 2 (m) of the aforementioned Act defines water course in the following terms :-" watercourse means a channel connected to an irrigation work capable of supplying water for the irrigation of a block of land or less than one hundred acres in area, which has been constructed partly or wholly by or at the cost of the State government, a co-operative society or local authority, or beneficiary; and" 18 The words "work" or "irrigational" works have not been defined in the said Act :- Clause (a) of Sec.4 of the said Act inter alia classifies those lands as Class I land which are irrigated or capable of being irrigated by flow irrigation work or tube wells or lift irrigation which are constructed, maintained, improved or controlled by the Central or the State Government or by body corporate constituted under any law and which provide or are capable of providing water for more than one season. However, explanation appended to the said provision provides that a land shall not be regarded as Class I land unless it is capable of growing at least two crops in a year. 19 Clause (b) of Sec.4 classifies those lands as Class II lands which are irrigated by such private lift irrigation or private tube wells as are operated by electric or diesel power, and provide or are capable of providing water for more than one season. 19 Clause (b) of Sec.4 classifies those lands as Class II lands which are irrigated by such private lift irrigation or private tube wells as are operated by electric or diesel power, and provide or are capable of providing water for more than one season. Clause (c) of Sec.4 of the Act classifies those lands as Class III lands which are irrigated or capable of being irrigated by works which provide or are capable of providing water for only only one season. Clause (d) of Sec.4 brings within its fold those lands which are not inter alia covered by other clauses of Sec.4 of the Act. Clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.4, therefore, are applicable in a case where irrigation facilities are provided whereby the public authorities or the private individual have been irrigating the land upon utilisation of irrigational facilities the lands for more than one season ; whereas clause (a)applies in a case where irrigational facilities have been provided by and works which means irrigational works for one season only. 20. In Md. Fakhruddin V/s. State of Bihar, reported in 1976 PLJR 184, it has clearly been held that question as to whether a land has been classified as Class III land or not would depend no irrigational facilities available therefore, by reason of installation of any works. 21. Section 4 (c) of the said Act reads thus :- "4 (c) Twenty-five acres, equivalent to 10.11.75 hectares of land, irrigated or capable of being irrigated by works which provide or are capable or providing water for only one season (hereinafter referred to as Class III lands ). " 22. From a bare reading of the aforementioned provisions it would therefore be evident that the lands can be classified as Class III lands provided any work exists for providing irrigational facilities. It has not been found by the Member Board of Revenue that such facilities Ext. He merely upheld the order of the Collector without assigning any cogent reason. In this situation, in my opinion, the matter relating to classification of land should he enquired into by the Collector under the Act again and who should pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as also the State to adduce their respective evidence. He may also himself hold local inspection In the matter. For the said purpose the provision of the Act, referred to by Mr. He may also himself hold local inspection In the matter. For the said purpose the provision of the Act, referred to by Mr. Ahsan, if applicable, may also be considered. 23. So far as the purported settlement made in favour of Nanhuku prasad Singh is concerned, from a perusal of the impugned order it does not appear that any material was placed for holding that the Nanhuku singh is farzidar. Any settlement made price to 22.10 1959 cannot be a subject-matter of any enquiry under the Act, unless it is head that transaction was absolutely a sham one whereby no title passed on the settled and/or vendee and/or in fact such a transaction has been effected after 22.10 1959, in which event a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) is required to be initiated for annulment of such transfer. 24. From the records it appears that the notice was sent to the nanhku Singh but the same had not been served on the ground that he was not a resident of village in question. 25. In this view of the matter, this application is allowed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 and consequently the order of the Collector under the Act are set aside to the extent mentioned hereinbefore, and the Collector under the Act is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh. Nanhku Singh who is petitioner No 3 alongwith other petitioners shall appear before the Collector within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Collector shall consider the matter after giving them an opportunity of hearing for the purpose of making an enquiry as to whether the said Nanhku Prasad Singh was a farzidar of the other petitioners or not. 26. As the matter is pending for a long time, it is desirable that the collector under the Act should dispose of the matter as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 27. This application is disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions but without any order as to costs. Application Disposed.