Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner Smt. Nibha Devi is daughter of the land holder Anari Devi. She is aggrieved by the decision and orders of the Ceiling Authorities contained in annexure 7 and annexures 3 and 2 passed in or out of original land Ceiling Case No. 585/73-74/109 of 1975-76 relating to district Purnea. Her main grievance is that she has been wrongly denied a separate unit as a major. She has also led a claim in the alternative that even if she is treated to be a minor on 9.9.70, since she was a married daughter hence as per Hindu law she must be treated to be of different family and her share of land should be allowed to be retained by her because of her father had died in the year 1957. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown from the impugned orders that the authorities have treated the certificate regarding age issued by Headmaster of a Primary School, Garh Banaili, Purnia and a certificate by lady doctor Geeta Rai, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital Purnea which are of the year 1976, casually and they were disbelieved without caring to examine the claim with due seriousness and without holding further enquiry, in case they had any reason to doubt those certificates. 4. Learned counsel for the State submitted on the basis of definition of family as contained in section 2(ee) that minor children whether they are sons or daughters, married or unmarried are included in the definition of family and as per explanations to the aforesaid section 2(ee) which was inserted by the Act 22 of 1976, the personal law shall not be relevant for determining the composition of the family for the purposes of the Act. On this basis it has been submitted that the claim on the basis of petitioner being married and on the basis of Hindu law cannot be accepted for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. The submission appear to be correct. 5. However, the other claim of the petitioner that she was major on 9.9.1970 still deserves to be considered and a perusal of the orders contained in annexures 2, 3 and 7 shows that the authorities have not given judicious consideration to the certificate of age of the year 1976 as issued by the Headmaster of the concerned school and the lady Civil Assistant Surgeon. The authorities under the Ceiling Act have power like Civil Courts in the matter of ordering of production of documents etc. and if they had any doubt regarding the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school, it was open for them to pass appropriate orders for production of relevant registers of the school to verify the correctness of the certificate or the claim of the petitioner. Similarly if they had any doubt regarding reliability of the Medical Certificate issued by the lady doctor, they would have asked the petitioner to get her examined by a Medical Board competent to determine age medically. Since this kind of step has not been taken by the authority that renders their decision with regard to age of the petitioner improper and the same is found to be not in accordance with law. 6. In view of aforesaid discussions the impugned orders in so far as they denied the claim of the petitioner that she is a major and denied her unit are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the original authority, the Additional Collector, Ceiling, Purnea, for deciding the aforesaid claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. This should be done expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in case petitioners claim is allowed then notification issued under section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act which was issued during the pendency of the revision application shall be cancelled and a fresh notification shall be issued by the authorities, if any surplus land is found as per subsequent decisions of the authorities. 7. The writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.