ORDER : By the ORDER :under appeal the writ court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants challenging the original ORDER :passed by the Addl. Collector, Sitamarhi dated 22nd December, 1995 in Land Ceiling Case NoA/75 after the case was reopened by the Collector of the District under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the appellate ORDER :dated 3.6.1996 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi, the Revisional ORDER :dated 26.12.1997 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue as well as statement of publication dated 5.1.1996. 2. The first point urged before the writ court was that in terms of Section 2(g) of the Act the lands covered by two deeds of usufructuary mortgage both dated 11.2.1968 should have been excluded from the land of the land-holder, although admittedly the said mortgaged lands were sold and transferred in favour of the mortgagees in August, 1972 i.e. after 9.9.1970, the appointed date for determination of ceiling area under the Act. The said contention was rightly negatived by the learned writ court. Section 2(g) of the Act while defining the term "land-holder" provides that this term means a family as defined In the Act holding land as raiyat or as under raiyat or mortgagee of land in possession of holding land permanently settled by the government or the lessee of land resumable by government. The aforesaid provision does not help the case of the appellants because the terms '''landholder" by itself does not seek to create any title or ownership in a mortgagee. It only defines land-holder against whom a proceeding under the Act may commence. Section 5 of the Act provides that it shall not be lawful for any family to hold land in excess of the ceiling area and the explanation to Section 5(1) clarifies that all lands "owned" or held individually by the members of family or jointly by some or all of the members of such family shall be deemed to be owned or held by the family. The aforesaid Section uses the term "owned" and, therefore, it clearly conveys that ceiling law has to apply to all lands owned or held by a family. 3. The aforesaid Section uses the term "owned" and, therefore, it clearly conveys that ceiling law has to apply to all lands owned or held by a family. 3. The concept of ownership or title is well known and it is also well settled in law that a mortgage does not divest mortgager of title in the land mortgaged. Further as noticed earlier admittedly the lands under mortgage were subsequently and after the appointed date transferred in favour of the morgagees. Hence, it has been rightly held by the learned writ court that such lands will be deemed to have been selected by the land-holder within its ceiling area in terms of Section 9(2) of the Act. 4. The next point urged in this appeal was with regard to the lands transferred in between 5.5.1981 and reopening of the case. The stand of the Respondent-State that such transferred lands will also be covered by the provision of Section 9(2) of the Act has been accepted by the learned writ court. 5. Assailing the aforesaid view of the learned writ court learned counsel for the appellants relied upon an unreported JUDGMENT : of this Hon'ble court dated 8th November, 1977 in C.W.J.C.No.509 of 1977 (Ramjanki Prasad and another vs. The State of Bihar and Others). The said JUDGMENT : has no application to the facts of this case because in the said case the State had resorted to treating the transfers made between the first proceeding and subsequent ceiling proceeding initiated on account of amendment in the Act as illegal and had annulled the transfer under Section 5(1) (iii) of the Act. At the instance of the transferee such ORDER :of annulment was quashed on the simple ground that no ceiling proceeding was pending at the time of transfer and hence Section 5(1) (iii) was not attracted. In this case there has been no ORDER :of annulment and the validity of the transfer has not been affected and hence in such a situation the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act have rightly been applied. 6. Thus, the ORDER :under appeal cannot be faulted on any of the points urged in this appeal and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.