JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai, J.- This petition is directed against the resolution dated 21.3.91 passed by the Member Board of Revenue in Revision Case no. 77/1990 dismissing the revision application against the order dated 8.8.90 passed by the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur in Case no. 6/1985-86 by which he has rejected the claim of the petitioners under sections 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that a Land Ceiling Case-no. 3/1980-81 was initiated against Sahdeo Singh respondent no.4, who is now dead and has been substituted by his legal representatives and three units were allotted to him. One unit for himself, another for his son and third unit for the petitioner no.3 Kedar Singh and the remaining lands were declared as surplus. The final publication was made under section 11 of the Act on 16.3.82 and a gazette notification under section 15 was also made in the district gazette on 17.6.85. When the petitioners came to know that their lands have been declared as surplus then they filed a writ application in this court being C.W.J.C. No. 346/1986 and this court by order dated 2.11.86 directed the petitioners to approach the Collector under Section 45B of the Act for re-opening of the case and then till the matter' is decided this court directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45B of the Act before the Collector, Vaishali and the. Collector called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari, Alauli as well as Anchal Adhikari, Raghopur where the lands are situate. Anchal Adhikari, Raghopur submitted his report on 31.3.90 and Anchal Adhikari, Alauli submitted his report on 6.4.90. Copies of the said reports have been annexed as Annexures-1 & 2 respectively. The Collector after considering the matter rejected the application under section 45B and thereafter, the petitioner went in revision before the Board of Revenue which has been rejected. Copies of the said orders have been annexed as Annexures 3 & 4 respectively. 3. The lands involved in the proceedings are situate in two villages, namely, village Jahangirpur within Raghopur police station in the district of Vaishali and village Chhilkauri within Alauli police station in the district of Khagaria. As stated above, a proceeding no. Copies of the said orders have been annexed as Annexures 3 & 4 respectively. 3. The lands involved in the proceedings are situate in two villages, namely, village Jahangirpur within Raghopur police station in the district of Vaishali and village Chhilkauri within Alauli police station in the district of Khagaria. As stated above, a proceeding no. 3/1980-81 was initiated only against Sahdeo Singh and after giving three units remaining units were declared as surplus and thereafter the petitioners came to this court and in pursuance of the direction of this court they appeared before the Collector where his claim, as stated above, has been rejected. 4. The petitioners' case is that about 105 bighas of lands in village Chirkauli, District Khagaria, and 65 bighas of land in village Jahangirpur, District Vaishali, belonged to Darshan Singh, who was common ancestor of the petitioner and others. Said Darshan Singh has two sons, namely, Langat Singh and Umraon Singh. About 60 years back there had been an amicable partition between Langat Singh and Umraon Singh. The petitioners represent the branch of Umraon Singh. Said Umraon Singh had six sons, namely, Baldeo Singh, Sukhdeo Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Jagdeo Singh, Pradeep Singh and Jagdeep Singh. Sukhdeo Singh is the father of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and grand father of petitioner nos. 2 & 4. Sahdeo Singh (respondent no.4) against whom the proceeding was initiated is now dead and has been substituted by the legal heirs. Jagdeo Singh is the father of petitioner no.5 and grandfather of petitioner no.6, Ashok Singh. The branch of Baldeo Singh and Pradeep Singh became extinct. Jagdeep Singh died leaving behind his widow Most. Darap Devi. Thus, the entire property of branch of Umraon Singh was possessed by four branches i.e. Sukhdeo Singh, Sahdeo Singh, Jagdeep Singh and Jagdeo Singh. Later on by way of convenience there was separation between the remaining sons of Umraon Singh. They came in possession over the land. In Ceiling case no. 3/1981 which was initiated against Sahdeo Singh under the Act the entire land was treated as the land of Sahdeo Singh and two units were given to him and the third unit was given to Kedar Singh. Though he was the son of Sukhdeo Singh he was treated as the son of Sahdeo Singh. In Ceiling case no. 3/1981 which was initiated against Sahdeo Singh under the Act the entire land was treated as the land of Sahdeo Singh and two units were given to him and the third unit was given to Kedar Singh. Though he was the son of Sukhdeo Singh he was treated as the son of Sahdeo Singh. It is stated by the petitioner that at the relevant time there were 6 adult members in the branch of Umraon Singh and the land holders were entitled to 6 units of the land as such there was no surplus land in the family but the authorities have wrongly declared the land as surplus land. 5. It appears that after the matter was remitted by this court a report, as stated above, were called for from the Anchal Adhikari of two blocks where the lands are situate and that reports were submitted wherein it was stated that Umraon Singh had six sons and two branches amongst them became extinct and there were six adult members in the family on 9.9.70, The Collector as well as the revisional court have rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they have not produced any document to show that the lands belong to them. 6. In my view, both the aforesaid courts have adopted wrong approach in deciding the matter in question. The case of the petitioners is that they have no other land except the land in question which belongs to branch of Umraon Singh. The verification report of the Anchal Adhikari shows that the lands belong to the branch of Umraon Singh and there were six major members in the family on 9.9.70. There were no material before the authorities to doubt about the verification report or the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners. It was not the case of the petitioners that amongst the branches of Umraon Singh there was partition by metes and bound. Only by way of convenience there were separation and as such it was not necessary to have the separate Jamabandi of all the branches - only because revenue was being paid by one of the members of the family' the other members of the family cannot be deprived of their unit if they were major on the relevant date i.e. 9.9.70. The materials on the record, as stated above, shows that these petitioners apart from Sahdeo Singh and his son were also major at the relevant time. As such there was no reason to reject their claim. This apart, it appears that Kedar Singh was granted one unit by the Ceiling Authority. The order granting unit to him attained finality but the same was also set aside by the Collector while disposing of the matter under section 45B of the Act, which, in my view, is not permissible in law as no opportunity was given to Kedar Singh to represent his version. 7. Accordingly, in my view, both the courts, below have rejected the claim of the petitioners only on the conjecture and surmises without considering the materials. As such the orders contained in Annexures 3 & 4 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Collector to decide the matter afresh as to whether the lands in ceiling belong to the branch of Umraon Singh or not or if it belongs to the branch of Umrao Singh then all the major members of his branch at the relevant time i.e. 9.9.70 should be given the unit. It is made clear that if it is found that the lands belong to the branch of Umraon Singh and the petitioners also belong to his branch and were major on 9.9.70 then they are entitled to the unit being the land holders within the meaning of the Act. It is also made clear that till the matter is finally decided by the Collector the lands in question shall not be distributed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Collector on or before 29th July, 99 along with a copy of this order, who will fix a date of hearing and dispose of the matter in the light of the observation made above. 8. In the result, the writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observation.