Judgment S. K. Homchaudhuri, J. 1. -this petition is directed against the resolution dated 4.8.1994 of the learned additional Member, Board of Revenue so far as it relates to Revision Case No.61 of 1991. 2. The petitioners case is that they are land-holders in respect of an area of land measuring 34.86 acres, which their predecessor-in-interest, md. Issa came to acquire from Mostt. Rabia Khatoon, the owner thereof and that in the year 1958, Md. Issa got his name mutated as land-holder of the aforesaid land measuring 34.86 acres. However, the land of the petitioners having been illegally clubbed with the land of Haji Md. Akhtar in Ceiling case No.29 of 1993-94 and declared surplus, for the purpose of acquisition thereof under the provisions of the bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) behind his back, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Md. Issa, approached this court in C. W. J. C. No.459 of 1978. This court by the judgment and order dated 3.4.1978 (a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5 to this petition)held that the fact that Md. Issa was the land-holder in respect of 34.86 acres of land was admitted even in the verification report submitted by the Block development Officer and, as such, notice of the proceedings should have been served on the recorded landholder and the objections should have been entertained and heard.-On the basis of such finding allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order with a direction to Respondent No.3 to dispose of the proceeding afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner Md. Issa to file objection and of being heard in the matter. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed objection, with the materials in support or the contention that he was land-holder in respect of the aforesaid land. According to the petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the respondent No.4, without considering documents rejected the contention that Md. Issa being the land-holder of the said land, his land could not be tagged with the land of hazi Md. Akhtar. 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner preferred appeal against the order of respondent No.4 and the appeal having been dismissed, the preferred Revision Case No.61 of 1991 before the Board of Revenue, bihar. Issa being the land-holder of the said land, his land could not be tagged with the land of hazi Md. Akhtar. 3. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner preferred appeal against the order of respondent No.4 and the appeal having been dismissed, the preferred Revision Case No.61 of 1991 before the Board of Revenue, bihar. The learned Additional Member, board of Revenue, by the impugned resolution dated 4.8.1994, dismissed revision-petition holding that the mutation in his favour in respect of the aforesaid land, which belonged to Hazi Md. Akhtar was a farzi entry and the same would not confer any title on Md. Issa; inasmuch as it was not established that the transfer of the land in question was validly made by rabiya Khatoon. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Ceiling matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this court in the judgment passed in C. W. J. C. No.459 of 1978 having found that Md. Issa, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was land-holder, the respondents ought to have proceeded by treating him as separate land-holder in respect of the land in question for determination of surplus land, if any, without clubbing the same with the land of Haji Ma. Akhtar in Ceiling case No.29 of 1993-94. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Additional Member, board of Revenue, on mere conjecture and surmises arbitrarily held that mutation of the plot of land in the year 1958 long before the Act came into force, was farzi, which has vitiated the decision. 6. Mr. Birendra Prasad Varma, learned Standing Counsel for the Ceiling matter, on the other hand, submits that the authorities below found that the transfer of the land made in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest was not legal or valid and consequently mutation of the land did not confer any title over the land to Md. Issa. Learned Standing counsel further submits that it is well settled that mutation of the land by revenue authority is not a conclusive proof of title of the person in whose favour the same is mutated and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue committed no error of law in passing the impugned judgment and order. 7. Issa. Learned Standing counsel further submits that it is well settled that mutation of the land by revenue authority is not a conclusive proof of title of the person in whose favour the same is mutated and the learned Member of the Board of Revenue committed no error of law in passing the impugned judgment and order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the ceiling matter and perused the materials on record. It is not disputed that the land in question was mutated in the name of Md. Issa, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, as land-holder thereof by the competent authority in the year 1958. A copy of the order of mutation is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. However, the learned Additional member of the Board rejected the revision-petition holding that valid and legal transfer of the land of Rabiya knatoon in favour of Md. Issa in the year 1952-53 has not been established and as such the mutation of the land in favour of Md. Issa, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was farzi and was done with a view to defeat the object of the provisions of the Act. The Act was enacted in the year 1961. To appreciate the rival contention, it is appropriate to have a look into the relevant provision of Sec.5 of the act, which is as follows: "5. No person to hold land in excess of the ceiling area- (1) (i) It shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except otherwise provided under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Explanation.-All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. Explanation.-All lands owned or held individually by the members of a family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. (ii) No land-holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area shall from the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972, and till the publication of notification under section 15, transfer any land held by him except with the previous permission in writing of the collector, who may refuse to give such permission if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the transfer is proposed to be made with a mala fide intention of defeating the object of this Act: provided that the transfer of any land made, with the previous permission of the collector shall be deemed to have been made from within the ceiling area admissible to the land-holder provided also that the transfer of any land beyond the ceiling area admissible to the land-holder shall be deemed to have been made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act. (iii) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or authority the Collector shall have power to make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this section. " 8. On a plain reading of the provision of sub-section (1) (iii) of section 5 of the Act, it becomes apparent that the Collector is conferred with the power to make enquiry in respect of transfer of land by the land-holder after 22nd of October, 1959, whether by registered instruments or otherwise, and the provision does not apply to transfer of land made before 22nd of october, 1959. As such ordinarily, there is little scope of enquiry into the transfer of the land in question which was mutated in favour of the transferee in 1958, before 22.10.1959. There is no doubt force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the ceiling matter that mere mutation of land in favour of a person is not a conclusive proof of his title over the land. But prima facie the mutation of the land gives rise to presumption of ownership of the land of the person in whose name the land is mutated. Unless the presumption is rebutted, the person in whose name the land is mutated, has to be presumed as landholder or owner thereof. When the plot of the land in question was mutated in the name of Md. Issa, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, in 1958, before 20.10.1959, merely because transfer thereof in the year 1952 was not established to be made in accordance with law, would hardly give rise to the presumption that the mutation thereof in the name of Md. Issa was farzi and made within the purpose to defeat at the object of the Act. 9. That being so, this petition is allowed and the impugned order, so far as it relates to Revision Case No.61 of 1991 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of revenue, Bihar, Patna, for disposal of revision Case No.61 of 1991 in accordance with law. The Board of revenue will dispose of the case after hearing the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. The petitioners shall appear before the board of Revenue on 15.1.1996 to receive order as regards fixation of date of hearing. I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.