Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. Sub-sec. (ee) of sec. 2 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 provides that the word "Family" shall mean and include a person, his or her spouse and their minor children. Explanation 2 to Sub-sec. (ee) of sec. 2 of the Act makes it clear that personal law shall not be relevant or be taken into consideration for determining the composition of the family for the purpose of the Act. Therefore in terms of the provisions of the Act the word "Family" shall mean and include a person, his or her spouse and their minor children. If the person is not married, then he alone shall be taken to be the family within the meaning of word "Family" as given in the Act. 2. sec. 5 of the Act provides that it shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except as otherwise provided in the Act, land in excess of the ceiling limit. Therefore sec. 5 of the Act mandates that a family as defind by the Act shall be entitled to hold land which is within the ceiling limit. 3. In the instant case the original writ petitioner held out before the authority concerned that Kaushalya Devi, being the sister of the original writ petitioner, of her own right should be treated to be a family or an unit. This contention was rejected first by the authorities exercising power under the Act and then by the learned Single Judge, who dealt with the matter, principally on the basis of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Sri K.M. Zuberi and Ors. reported 1996 (2) PLJR (S.C) 55. 4. On facts, it was not disputed by the authorities concerned at any point of time that father of the original writ petitioner died after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 leaving, amongst others, Kaushalya Devi as one of his successors and by reason thereof Kaushalya Devi acquired a complete right for herself to the extent of her share in the land left by her father at the time of his death. 5. 5. In the case referred to above, as would be evident from the report, an adult son of Hindu Mitakshara family was treated as a separate unit from the unit of the father of the said adult male. The authority concerned, who dealt with the matter in relation to a muslim gentleman, applied the same principle in relation to the said gentleman. When the matter came up for consideration before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Hon ble Supreme Court pointed out that there is no concept of the land being succeeded by the sons during the life time of the father, and as such no adult male member either of a Hindu family or of a Muslim family could claim to be treated to be a separate unit or family apart from the family of his father. 6. This law as has been pronounced by the Hon ble Supreme Court has no application in the instant case. 7. In the instant case the father of Kaushalya Devi was not alive on 9th of September, 1970. As on 9th September, 1970, as a major citizen of India, Kaushlaya Devi had already inherited her share in the land left by her father. In those circumstances it was unjust to include Kaushalya Devi as a member of the family of her deceased brother, being the original writ petitioner, as was sought to be done by the authorities concerned. 8. In those circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the orders passed by the authorities under the Act are also quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector under the Act with a direction to dispose of the matter in the light of the observation made above as quickly as possible but not later than three months from the date of service of the copy of this judgment upon him.