ORDER As both the cases arise out of common ceiling proceeding, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. A Land Ceiling Case No. 26/70-71/98/73-74 was started against land holder Ganga Dayal Singh. On whose death the son, land holder Brij Kumar Singh (Petitioner of C.W.J.C. 3849/98) was substituted and ultimately certain lands were declared surplus. Final notification was not issued, so in view of insertion of section 32B made vide amended Act 55 of 1982, it was started afresh. After hearing the parties, considering the materials on record, the Collector allowed three units and ordered to retain 45 acres of Class-I lands. Total land being 31. 06 acres of Class-I, so it was not declared as surplus land. Final publication to that effect was made under Section 11 (1) on 28th November, 1983. 3. Subsequently, the case was reopened under Section 45B and on notice, the petitioner again filed objection under Section 10(3). This time, after hearing the parties, taking into consideration the objection, verification report and other materials on record, two units were allowed and 3.39 acres of Class-I lands were held to be surplus. The order on challenge was affirmed by appellate and revisional authorities vide their orders dated 14th August, 1955 and 13th January, 1998 respectively. 4. Another Ceiling Case No. 125/73-74 was started against one Ramji Prasad Singh, father of petitioner Akshay Kumar Singh of C.W.J.C. No. 4038 of 1998. In the said case, vide order dated 11th May, 1977, it was held that there was no surplus land and proceeding was dropped. 5. Initially, the counsel for petitioner Brij Kumar Singh of C.W.J.C. No. 3849 of 1998 raised sole question relating to jurisdiction of Additional Collector to reopen the matter under Section 45B of Ceiling Act. It was pleaded that the Collector of the District had not passed any order and Addl. Collector reopened the same. 6. A counter affidavit was filed wherein it was specifically pleaded that the order of reopening was passed by the Collector of the district. The case was transferred to Additional Collector who passed the original order. It was pleaded that the Collector of the District had not passed any order and Addl. Collector reopened the same. 6. A counter affidavit was filed wherein it was specifically pleaded that the order of reopening was passed by the Collector of the district. The case was transferred to Additional Collector who passed the original order. The aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the Respondents was found to be correct from the order sheet from which it will be evident that the Collector of the district, after notice to the petitioner ordered on 15th October, 1986 to reopen the case where in after the original authority took up the matter on transfer of the case. 7. Confronted with the aforesaid statement made in the counter affidavit, the counsel for the petitioner-Brij Kumar Singh tried to raise other questions. According to him, the family members of original land holder Ganga Dayal Singh were entitled for a total three units which were initially actually granted. Ganga Dayal Singh died and left behind three major heirs namely, Brij Kumar Singh, son and two widows. It was suggested that both the widows apart from the son, Brij Kumar Singh were entitled for separate units. He also questioned the classification as was made by the authorities. 8. Counsel for the State rightly pointed out that the aforesaid two questions were not raised before the authorities nor detailed pleading, in this respect, has been made in the writ petition. Thereby, the petitioner cannot raise the aforesaid issues for the first time before this Court. 9. This apart, I do not subscribe to the submission that both the widows, after death of Ganga Dayal Singh become entitled for separate units, they having individual share over the lands which originally belonged to Ganga Dayal Singh. Ceiling Act does not stipulate any provision for grant of any unit to any major member of a Hindu family. It is a 'family' of a land holder which is entitled for such unit. The 'family' as defined under Section 2 (ee) of the Act includes, the land holder, he or her spouse and minor children only. For this purpose, the land of the spouse and minor children are to be clubbed together to find out whether the 'family' as defined under the Act retains lands more than the ceiling area or not. The 'family' as defined under Section 2 (ee) of the Act includes, the land holder, he or her spouse and minor children only. For this purpose, the land of the spouse and minor children are to be clubbed together to find out whether the 'family' as defined under the Act retains lands more than the ceiling area or not. As the two widows were members of common 'family' of original land holder-Ganga Dayal Singh, the family was entitled for an unit and would have been granted additional fractional unit, if it could be shown that the members were more than five in number. In such circumstances even after death of Ganga Dayal Singh, both the widows cannot claim lands more than an unit as they separately do not constitute two separate 'families' as defined under the Act. 10. So far as classification of land is concerned, the petitioner-Brij Kumar Singh has not pleaded nor brought on record any evidence to suggest that it was wrongly made and a verification report was incorrect. I, thereby find no merit in C.W.J.C. No. 3849 of 1998 and reject the same. 11. So far as writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 4038 of 1998 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner-Akshaya Kumar Singh was that the land, in question, measuring 1 acre 31/2 decimals of plot No. 4631 under Khata No. 24 which was shown to be land of his father Ramji Prasad Singh, a separate land holder and it was so reflected in Ceiling Case No. 125/7374 initiated against him, but same very land has now been shown as land of land holder Brij Kumar Singh in L.C. Case No. 26/73-74 and has been declared surplus. 12. Counsel for the State produced the original record of the aforesaid ceiling cases. A separate counter affidavit has also been filed in said C.W.J.C. No. 4038 of 1998. It was pointed that Plot No. 4631 under Khata No. 24 of Mouza-Mathila (Thana No. 378) had a total area of 2.07 acres. It falls half and half in the share of Ramji Prasad Singh and Brij Kumar Singh i.e. 1 acre 31/2 decimals. A separate counter affidavit has also been filed in said C.W.J.C. No. 4038 of 1998. It was pointed that Plot No. 4631 under Khata No. 24 of Mouza-Mathila (Thana No. 378) had a total area of 2.07 acres. It falls half and half in the share of Ramji Prasad Singh and Brij Kumar Singh i.e. 1 acre 31/2 decimals. While the half of the Plot No. 4631 measuring 1 acre 31/2 decimals of the share of Ramji Prasad Singh was not found to be surplus in case No. 125/7374, the rest half of area measuring 1 acre 31/2 decimals of said very Plot No. 4631 was found to be surplus area of Ganga Dayal Singh/Brij Kumar Singh. It was such area which was declared surplus and not the land which belonged to Ramji Prasad Singh. 13. In view of aforesaid specific stand taken by the State, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed in L.C. Case No. 26/73-74 at the instance of other land holder Akshaya Kumar Singh. 14. In the result none of the writ petitions succeed and they are dismissed.