Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 11-1-1983 passed by the Additional Collector, Munger, the order dated 28-3-1983 passed by the Collector and the order dated 30-8-1983 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar as contained in Annexure-3, 5 and 6 respectively to the writ application. 2. In view of the points involved in this application, it is not neces-sary to state the fact of the matter in details. 3. Suffice it to say that according to the petitioner, his father Md. Yahya was the owner of the lands in question which were situated in four villages, namely, Shakrawan, Panchi, Saidpur and Koila. 4. According to the petitioner, aforementioned Md. Yahya died on 21-10-1959 leaving behind the petitioner and his two brothers/namely, Md. Waleed and Md. Hasham and widow Bibi Nazima. 5. The lands in question were taken in settlement of, according to the petitioner by his father as far back as in the year 1939. 6. However, a land ceiling proceeding was initiated as against the petitioner only. The said 16.10 Acres of lands were declared as surplus lands at the hands of the petitioner. 7. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Land Ceiling Appeal No.7/1980-81 which was dismissed on 7-7-1980 by the Collector. Thereafter, a revision application was filed by the petitioner before the Member, board of Revenue, Bihar being Revision Case No.147/1980. 8. During the pendency of this application, Sec.32-A of the 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 inserted as a result of which the said revision application ebated. 9. A fresh proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. By an order dated 11-1-1983 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, the Additional Collector accepted the contention of the petitioner that the lands situated in all the aforementioned villages originally belonged to his father except in respect of the lands situated in village Koila. 10. The Appellate Court by the respective orders dated 11-1-1983 28-3-1983 and 30-8-1983 rejected the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner. 11. The Appellate Court in the revisional order dealt with the matter very perfunctorily. 10. The Appellate Court by the respective orders dated 11-1-1983 28-3-1983 and 30-8-1983 rejected the appeal and the revision filed by the petitioner. 11. The Appellate Court in the revisional order dealt with the matter very perfunctorily. The Appellate and the Revisional Authorities and in particular the Appellate Authority is bound to take into consideration all the aspects of the matter and pass a detailed order. 12. However, from a perusal of the impugned order dated 11-1-1983 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, it appears that the learned Additional Collector has misdirected himself in law in so far as he held that so far the properties situated in the village Koila is concerned the same must be held to be possessed by the petitioner as his mother and other two brothers have been allotted lands in the other villages. The consideration which weighed the Additional Collector for passing the said order is irrelevant one. 13. The petitioners father died in the year 1959 and his heirs and legal representatives inherited his properties in accordance with the principles of Mohammedan Law. 14. In that view of the matter, the question of allotting the lands to the petitioner in the village Koila depriving his other two brothers and mother from the interest thereof must be held to be wholly illegal. 15. Jn this view of the matter, the application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-3, 5 and 6 are set aside. 16. The Collector of the districts hereby directed to make necessary corrections in the Notification published by now treating the lands situa-ted in village Koila as belonging to the petitioner and his other co-sharers as he has done in respect of the lands situated in other villages. 17. The application is allowed with the aforementioned directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.