JUDGMENT : S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.- In a land ceiling proceeding, certain lands were declared surplus, the appeal and revision applications preferred by the landholder were rejected. The aforesaid ORDER :s, as contained in Annexures-3, 2 & 1 respectively, have been challenged by the petitioners. 2. A land Ceiling Case no.17 of 1973-74 was initiated against the original landholder late Jagarnath Prasad Singh wherein final ORDER :was passed on 28th April, 1981 and notification U/s 11(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 26th February, 1983 whereby and whereunder 18.07 acres of lands were declared surplus. Two units were allowed in favour of the landholders and their family. Being not satisfied, the landholders preferred appeal. In the meantime, in view of insertion of section 32A of the Act, the original proceeding abated. A fresh proceeding was started and re-numbered as L.C. Case no.8 of 1990-91. This time, after submission of a fresh verification report and draft publication, the petitioners filed objection under section 10(3) of the Act. They claimed for more units, exclusion of certain lands from the proceeding and challenged the classification. Prayer was rejected vide original ORDER :dated 3rd/7th July, 1995 and only two units, one in favour of first petitioner Uma Shankar Prasad and the other in favour of second petitioner Smt. Kishori Devi (Widow of late Jagarnath Prasad Singh) were allowed. No separate unit was allowed in favour of third petitioner-Sabita Mishra, nor any land was excluded towards her share. The appeal and then the revision applications, thereafter, preferred by the petitioners were also rejected vide ORDER :s dated 5th November, 1996 and 21st February, 1998 respectively. 3. The grievance of the petitioners, as was raised by the counsel, only related to separate unit, share of the daughter-Sabita Mishra and in respect to the classification of land as was shown in the proceeding. Counsel for the petitioners relied on Bench decisions of this Court in Dwarika Singh's case (1977 B.B.C.J. 696) and Pramod Prasad Singh's case [ 1998(2) P.L.J.R. 689 ] in respect to share of daughter. Reliance was also placed in Shiv Narain Khawaray's case (1977 B.B.C.J.452) in respect to classification of land. 4. Counsel for the petitioners relied on Bench decisions of this Court in Dwarika Singh's case (1977 B.B.C.J. 696) and Pramod Prasad Singh's case [ 1998(2) P.L.J.R. 689 ] in respect to share of daughter. Reliance was also placed in Shiv Narain Khawaray's case (1977 B.B.C.J.452) in respect to classification of land. 4. The counsel for the State while opposed the prayer, submitted that the petitioners failed to persue their case before the original authority and did not press the objection. He placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Zuberi & others [1996(2) P.L.J.R. 55(S.C.)] in support of contention that the daughter being not a member of the family, was not entitled for separate unit. 5. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that a suggestion was made by the counsel for the petitioners that if a person is major and is a member of family, under the Ceiling Act, such person is entitled for ceiling unit. For determination as to whether a member of a family, if major as on cut-off date(9.9.1970) is entitled for a separate unit or not, it is essential to analyse the different provisions of the Ceiling Act. The question relating to determination of ceiling unit and share of heir fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Zuberi (supra). Therein the Court while upholding the minority view of Full Bench decision of this Court, held:- "An analysis of the aforesaid provisions unequivocally indicate that under the Act the ceiling area is required to be determined of a "family" as defined in section 2(ee) and, therefore, the land holder of whose ceiling is going to be determined may be either a person, his or her spouse and minor children. A major child whether belonging to a Hindu family or Mohammedan or Christian is not conceived of getting an additional unit while determining the ceiling area of a land holder. A major son of a Hindu can get an independent ceiling determined provided he is raiyat within the meaning of section 2(k) and has become a land-holder within the ambit of section 2(g) but not as a successor of the land-holder whose ceiling is being determined on the ground that he has a right in the property by virtue of birth. In other words, under the Act no distinction has been maintained between Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian for determination of the ceiling area in the hands of the land holders." 6. From the aforesaid decision read with sections 2(ee), 2(g), 2(k) and section 4 of the Act, it can be safely stated that (a) under the Act, the ceiling area is to be determined of a (ceiling) "family" as defined under section 2(ee) and not of a family "as understood under personal Law" (b) the landholder of whose "families" ceiling is to be determined may either a person, his or her spouse and minor children. There may be two landholders within one(ceiling) "family" but as (ceiling) "family" of the landholder is entitled for unit, no separate unit can be granted to different landholders of same(ceiling) "family"; (c) a major child whether belonging to a Hindu family or a Mohammedan or Christian is not conceived of getting an additional unit while determining the ceiling area of a landholder (Ceiling) "family"; (d) a major child can get an independent ceiling determined for his/her(ceiling) "family" provided he/she is a separate "raiyat" within the meaning of section 2(k) and has become a "landholder" within the ambit of section 2(g) and (e) a major child cannot claim as a successor of the landholder on the ground that he/she has a right in the property by virtue of birth. 7. So far as grant of share to a heir in a ceiling proceeding is concerned, the question stands decided in Dwarika Singh's case (1977 B.B.C.J.696). In the said case, this Court held that in view of provisions of Hindu Succession Act, on the death of landholder, his/her interest in the property would also devolve on heirs including daughter in accordance with the provisions of section 6 read with section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Pramod Prasad Singh's case [ 1998(2) P.L.J.R. 689 )]. Thereby, it can be safely stated that on the death of landholder, the interest in property would devolve on the heirs, who can ask for share even in a land ceiling proceeding. 8. One of the stands taken by the counsel for the State was that the authorities under the Ceiling Act had no jurisdiction to determine the share. Thereby, it can be safely stated that on the death of landholder, the interest in property would devolve on the heirs, who can ask for share even in a land ceiling proceeding. 8. One of the stands taken by the counsel for the State was that the authorities under the Ceiling Act had no jurisdiction to determine the share. The aforesaid stand cannot be accepted in view of provisions laid down under section 18 of the Act. 9. Under the aforesaid provision (section 18), there is a restriction of future acquisition by inheritance apart from bequest, gift or on alluvial action. If any person, after commencement of the Act acquires any land by inheritance and on such acquisition, the total land exceeds in the aggregate ceiling area then such person is liable to submit return to the Collector within a stipulated period. In a particular case where on such inheritance it is found that the person acquired land in excess of the ceiling area to which he is not entitled to retain under the Act, the Collector is required to acquire such surplus land under Sub-section 4 therein. Thereby, the authorities under the Ceiling Act are also required to take into consideration as to whether a person acquired any land by inheritance or not and for such determination it is required to determine the share of such person. It is for the said reason, this Court in Dwarika Singh's case (1977 B.B.C.J. 696) and Pramod Prasad Singh's case [1998 (2) P.L.J.R.689] felt necessity to remit the case for such determination. 10. In the present case, the ceiling proceeding was initiated against the original landholder-Jagarnath Prasad Singh. Her daughter, Sabita Mishra being married, was rightly not shown as a member of his (ceiling) "family". Said daughter-Sabita Mishra being married and her father-Jagarnath Prasad Singh being alive on 9.9.1970, her father's land never devolved on her. Thereby, she was not entitled to claim for separate unit herself being not a "raiyat" or a landholder for determination of ceiling unit in favour of her family. However, on the death of original landholder-Jagarnath Prasad Singh. she became entitled for her share over the property of the original landholder, since the date of death. Thereby, she was not entitled to claim for separate unit herself being not a "raiyat" or a landholder for determination of ceiling unit in favour of her family. However, on the death of original landholder-Jagarnath Prasad Singh. she became entitled for her share over the property of the original landholder, since the date of death. As the ceiling proceeding was initiated against separate landholder (Jagarnath Prasad Singh), after death of landholder and since the date of inheritance, the daughter-Sabita Mishra became entitled to claim for her share, for the purpose of exclusion of her share from the ceiling proceedings, as she was not entitled to claim for separate unit for her (ceiling) "family" in such proceeding initiated against another landholder. At best, on such inheritance her land along with land of her spouse and minor children if exceeds the ceiling area, then she is liable to submit return to the Collector in accordance with section 18 of the Ceiling Act. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I allow the petitioner-Sabita Mishra to move before the Collector under the Act for exclusion of land to the extent of her share, if any, from the ceiling proceeding in question. If so required, she is also required to submit return under section 18 of the Act, if on inheritance the land of her (ceiling) "family" exceeds the ceiling area. If such application is filed by petitioner-Sabita Mishra before the Collector under the Act, the said authority will decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of three months. In case, the petitioner-Sabita Mishra is required to file return under section 18 of the Act, the Collector will not reject such return on the ground of limitation. 12. So far as the second question relating to classification of land is concerned, it will be evident from Annexure-3 that such issue was neither raised, nor pressed by petitioners before the original authority. No document was placed by the petitioners before the authorities to show that the classification shown in the verification report was incorrect. There is nothing on record to suggest that such classification was wrongly made. Accordingly, I reject the prayer so far it relates to classification of land. 13. The counsel for the petitioners, during the course of argument, submitted that certain lands were transferred prior to 9.9.1970 and 22nd October, 1959 and prayed for exclusion of such land. There is nothing on record to suggest that such classification was wrongly made. Accordingly, I reject the prayer so far it relates to classification of land. 13. The counsel for the petitioners, during the course of argument, submitted that certain lands were transferred prior to 9.9.1970 and 22nd October, 1959 and prayed for exclusion of such land. In this context, I may observe that if any land transferred prior to 22nd October, 1959, should be excluded and similarly, if any land transferred after 22nd October, 1959, but before 9.9.1970 is to be excluded, if not annulled and not held to be furji. Other land, if any, transferred by landholders after 9.9.1970, should be treated to have been selected by the landholders for retention in their favour in accordance with section 9(2) of the Act. 14. So far as legality of annulment of any transfer is concerned, if made by the authorities, such question having not been raised, I am not giving the liberty to the petitioners to raise such question. 15. The writ petition stands disposed of, with the aformentioned observations/directions.