Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. All the five writ applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. One Pundep Prasad, father of respondent No.3 died on 1-2-1955 leaving behind his six sons namely Hari Charan Prasad Sah, Rameshwar pd. Sah, Biswanath Pd. Sah, Dinanath Pd. Sah, Paras Nath Pd. Sah and baidyanath Pd. Sah. The said family had more than 300 acres of lands. According to the petitioner, partition was effected amongst the aforementioned six sons of Pundeo Prasad on 9-5-1961. The petitioner had contended that Hari Charan Pd. Sah in terms of the aforementioned partition came in possession of 0.90 decimals of land of plot numbers 157, 158 and 159. 3. A proceeding under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred for the sake of brevity as the said Act) was initiated against Hari Charan Prasad Sah. The said proceeding was dropped by an order dated 22-5-1979 passed by the Additional Collector, Motihari, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. It has been held therein that the said laid-holder having 33.65 acres of lands would be entitled to four units and, thus, no surplus land is available at his hands. However, it was directed that as all the six brothers are separate, so separate proceedings under the said Act should be initiated against each of them. 4. Pursuant to the said direction proceedings started against all the five brothers. Hari Charan Pd. Sah, however, by a registered deed of sale dated 12-8-1972 transferred a portion of the lands of plot numbers 157 and 158 to one Smt. Malti Jaiswal and by another deed of sale dated 17-8-1972 transferred a portion of the lands of plot number 159 to one bharat Bhusan Prasad. The aforementioned Smt. Malti Jaiswal by a registered deed of sale dated 1-3-1975 and 1-3-1977 transferred her right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner and similarly Bharat Bhushan prasad by a registered deed of sale dated 1-4-1975 transferred his right, title and interest to the petitioner. The aforementioned Smt. Malti Jaiswal by a registered deed of sale dated 1-3-1975 and 1-3-1977 transferred her right, title and interest in favour of the petitioner and similarly Bharat Bhushan prasad by a registered deed of sale dated 1-4-1975 transferred his right, title and interest to the petitioner. The petitioner, thus, claims 28 decimals put of 31 decimals of land of plot number 157.25 decimals out of 28 decimals of land in plot number 158 and 28 decimals out of 31 decimals of land in plot number 159 and, thus, claiming 81 decimals out of 90 decimals of land out of the aforementioned three plots. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that 81 decimals of land have been included as surplus land in the land Ceiling proceeding initiated against each of the aforementioned five brothers of Hari Charan Prasad Sah. 6. In this situation, the petitioner questions the aforementioned notification dated 22-2-1983 published in the extra-ordinary Gazette as contained in Annexure-3 to th writ application. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherin it has been contended that the transfer of lands has been executed after 9-9-1970 by hari Charan Pd. Sah to the petitioner and the same involves in question of law. 8. It has been further stated that at the time of sale, Hari Charan pd. Sah and his five brothers were joint in as much as there was no partition amongst the brothers in accordance with law. 9. It is true that Hari Charan Pd. Sab transferred the lands in question after 9-9-1970 but in view of the provision of Sec.9 (2) of the said Act, the said land must be deemed to have selected by Han Charan Pd. Sab. 10. Thus, the lands sold by Hari Charan Pd. Sah could have been included in the lands retained by him. As by an order dated 22-5-1979 passed by the Additional Collector Motibari, It has been held that hari charan Pd. Sah had no surplus land, even Sec.5 (ii) of the said Act would not be attracted in this case. 11. Even assuming that there had been no partition by metes and bounds, Hatcharan Pd. Sah could have sold his own lands out of his own share. 12. Sah had no surplus land, even Sec.5 (ii) of the said Act would not be attracted in this case. 11. Even assuming that there had been no partition by metes and bounds, Hatcharan Pd. Sah could have sold his own lands out of his own share. 12. It is well known that under Hindu Law a partition consists of two elements, namely, (i) intention amongst the co-sharers to divide the joint properties, and (ii) actual partition by metes and bounds. 13. Once a co-sharer expresses his intention to divide the lands the respective shares of each co-sharer is determined on that day and, there after, the co-sharers hold the land, even if there is no actual partition by metes and bounds, as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. 14. In this view of the matter. Hari Charan Pd. Sah could have sold the lands in question out of his own share. 15. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application can not be sustained. 16. These application are, therefore, allowed so far as the lands claimed by the petitioner which have been described hereinfore i. e.81 decimals out of 90 decimals of lands out of lot numbers 157, 158 and 159 are concerned. Thus, the Notification dated 22-2-1983 as contained in annexure-3 to the writ application is quashed to the aforementioned extent. However, there will be no order as to costs. Applications allowed.