CAV JUDGMENT CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, JJ. Upon whom did the onus to prove the minority of a person to determine the ceiling area of a family on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970 under the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act- 12 of 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act) did lay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is the issue involved in the present appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this High Court. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 1151 of 2001, whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the landholder denying minority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary (since deceased) on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970 has been rejected, upholding the order of learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna dated 1.11.2000 in the following terms:- “I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission. If on account of death, Pankaj Kumar Tiwary could not be examined scientifically and his age could not be assessed scientifically, the authorities cannot be held responsible for such non-examination. The contemporaneous documents about the age of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary has been thoroughly considered in paragraph 4 of the order dated 1.11.2000 and having considered each of contemporaneous documents, the Board of Revenue has given reasons for rejecting each of the documents. I do not find any illegality in the order of the Board of Revenue dated 1.11.2000, Annexure-9. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed”. 2. Before I advert to the undisputed facts, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant statutory provisions under the Act for proper appreciation of the facts and issues involved in the present case. 3. The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 provides, inter alia, for fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land by the State in the State of Bihar. Section 4 of the Act is the substantive provision which provides for fixation of ceiling area of the land. It mandates that on the appointed day the ceiling area of land for one family consisting of not more than five members for the purposes of this Act shall be as provided under Section 4. Section 4 of the Act is the substantive provision which provides for fixation of ceiling area of the land. It mandates that on the appointed day the ceiling area of land for one family consisting of not more than five members for the purposes of this Act shall be as provided under Section 4. Sub Section (a) to (f) of Section 4 of the Act prescribes ceiling area of the land which such family can hold depending upon the class/ nature of the land. 4. Section 2 (a) of the Act defines “ appointed day” as 9.9.1970. Section 2 (ee) defines “family” in the following terms:- “2(ee) “family” means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor children”; Section 2(eee) defines “minor child” as follows:- “2(eee) “minor child” in relation to a family whose ceiling area is determined under Section 4 with reference to the land held by it on the 9th September, 1970, shall mean “ a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years on that date” and in respect of future acquisition as contemplated in Section 18, the date on which such acquisition takes place”; 5. “Ceiling Area” has been defined to mean as the area of the land fixed under Section 4 of the ceiling area. “Landholder”, as per Section 2 (g) of the Act means of a family as defined in clause (ee) holding land as raiyat or as under-raiyat or a mortgage of land in possession of holding land permanently settled by Government or lessee of land not resumable by Government. 6. Section 5 of the Act declares that it shall not be lawful for any family to hold, except otherwise provided under the Act, land in excess of the ceiling area. Section 5 2(i) of the Act provides that where the number of members in the family on the appointed day exceeds five the family may hold in addition to the ceiling area determined under Section 4, land not exceeding one-tenth of the ceiling area for that class of land for every such additional member; Provided that in no case the aggregate of the land held by the family shall exceed one and a half times the ceiling area. 7. 7. On conjoint reading of Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act read with the definitions of the appointed day, ceiling area, family, minor child and landholder as given in Section 2(a), (aaa), (ee),(eee) and (g) respectively, it will appear that a family consisting of a person, his or her spouse and minor children ( a person who has not attained the age of 18 years as on 9.9.1970), being a landholder can hold land up to the ceiling area prescribed in Section 4 of the Act, if such family consists not more than five members. If the number of members in the family is more than five, such family may hold in addition to the ceiling area determined under Section 4, land not exceeding one –tenth of the ceiling area for every such additional member with the limitation that in no circumstance the aggregate of the land held by the family shall exceed one and a half times the ceiling area. 8. Pankaj Kumar Tiwary, (since deceased and husband of appellant No.1) was son of Upendra Kumar Tiwary and Grandson of late Ram Pabitra Tiwary alias Pavitra Tiwary. The dispute in the present case is confined only to minority or otherwise of late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary as on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970. If on that date Pankaj Kumar Tiwary is held to be a minor child, the family as defined under the Act would be entitled to hold the land up to the ceiling area as prescribed under Section 4 of the Act + one-tenth if the number of members of family exceeds five. 9. The unit for the purpose of the ceiling area is family as defined in Section 2(ee) of the Act. All major members of the Hindu family with their spouse and minor children, who are entitled to be treated as landholder within the meaning of the Act, have to be treated as separate unit for the purpose of determination of surplus land under the Act. Therefore, if as on 9.9.1970 late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary is treated to be of more than 18 years of age, he will be entitled for a separate unit in order to hold the land up to the ceiling area as prescribed in Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, if as on 9.9.1970 late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary is treated to be of more than 18 years of age, he will be entitled for a separate unit in order to hold the land up to the ceiling area as prescribed in Section 4 of the Act. This is the reason why there is a dispute between the State of Bihar and the appellants herein with regard to the age of late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary as on 9.9.1970. The claim of the appellants is that late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was 19 years old as on 9.9.1970. The State claims that he was a minor on that day as he had not produced any material to establish that he was more than 18 years of age on the appointed day. 10. Again before dealing with the respective pleadings made on behalf of the landholder and the State of Bihar, it would be apt to refer to the procedure prescribed under the Act to determine ceiling area in excess of which it is not lawful for the landholder to hold land. The procedure is laid down under Sections 6, 7, 8, 8(a), 9, 10 and 11 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act requires the State Government by issuance of notice to call upon the landholder of the State who hold land in excess of the ceiling area, any where in the State, to submit to the Collector of the District a return containing the particulars as mentioned therein. In the event of failure on the part of a landholder to submit return under Section 6, the Collector has the authority to obtain necessary information from such agency as he thinks proper. Section 8 is a penal provision, in case of default on the part of a landholder to submit return or file return containing incorrect particulars. Section 9 of the Act provides that the landholder shall have option to select the land which he desires to retain. 11. Section 10 of the Act contemplates preparation of draft statement on the basis of the information given by the landholder under Sections 6, 8, 9 or the information obtained by the Collector under Section 7 of the Act. Section 10 (2) mandates publication of a draft statement in the official Gazette and service of such draft statement on the landholder. Section 10 of the Act contemplates preparation of draft statement on the basis of the information given by the landholder under Sections 6, 8, 9 or the information obtained by the Collector under Section 7 of the Act. Section 10 (2) mandates publication of a draft statement in the official Gazette and service of such draft statement on the landholder. Section 10 (3) prescribes that any objection to the draft statement can be received within thirty days of its publication or service thereof to be considered by the Collector after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. From the pleadings made in the writ application, it appears that a ceiling proceeding being Ceiling Case no. 4 of 1976 was started against Pavitra Tiwary alias Ram Pavitra Tiwary. In the said proceeding the Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer) submitted a verification report with regard to the family of late Pavitar Tiwary alias Ram Pavitar Tiwary indicating the age of the respective members in genealogical table as on 9.9.1970, showing five members of the joint famly as major on 9.9.1970 including Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. The said ceiling proceeding was held before the Collector under the Act being Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. In course of the proceeding of said land Ceiling Case No. 4 of 1976 before the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi no objection was raised by the State challenging the age of the family members of the landholder and he, relying on the verification report of the Circle Officer allowed 5 +1/10 units to the landholder in accordance with the genealogical table submitted by the Circle Officer by an order dated 1.7.1983 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). It has been pleaded that there were objections raised on behalf of the landholder on issues other than the age of the family members, some of which were allowed by the Additional Collector, whereas other were rejected. The Additional Collector allowed 153 acres of Class IV land to be retained by the landholder and declared 16.40 acres of Class IV land to be surplus. 13. The draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Act was accordingly, published, showing 174.93 acres of Class IV land in possession of the landholder; allowing 5+1/10 units ( 153 acres of Class IV land) to be retained by landholder and declaring 21.93 acres of land as surplus. 14. 13. The draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Act was accordingly, published, showing 174.93 acres of Class IV land in possession of the landholder; allowing 5+1/10 units ( 153 acres of Class IV land) to be retained by landholder and declaring 21.93 acres of land as surplus. 14. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal from any final order passed by any officer vested with the power of the Collector under this Act other than the Collector of the district to the Collector of the district or any other officer specially authorized in this behalf by the State Government within thirty days of such an order. Landholder preferred an appeal under Section 30 of the Act before the Collector, Sitamarhi vide Ceiling Appeal No. 12 of 1983. The allegation on behalf of the present appellants is that much after the expiry of the limitation as prescribed under Section 30 of the Act the State of Bihar also preferred an appeal vide Appeal No. 4 of 1984 before the District Collector, Sitamarhi, questioning the order of the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi on the ground, inter alia, that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor as on 9.9.1970. It has been asserted on behalf of the appellants that no document was filed on behalf of the State of Bihar to support its claim that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor as on 9.9.1970. The appeal preferred on behalf of the appellants (Appeal No. 12 of 1983) herein was rejected by the District Collector and the State appeal (Appeal No. 4 of 1984) was allowed reducing the units from 5+1/10 to four units holding that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor, as on 9.9.1970. I will not go into the other facts pleaded in the writ application and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State than those which relate to the claim and counter claim regarding majority and minority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary as on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970. A revision application was preferred on behalf of the landholder against the appellate order passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in Appeal No. 4 of 1984, vide Revision application no. 209 of 1985 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. A revision application was preferred on behalf of the landholder against the appellate order passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in Appeal No. 4 of 1984, vide Revision application no. 209 of 1985 before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna by order dated 21.6.1988 passed in Revision Application No. 209 of 1985 remanded the matter back to the District Collector, Sitamarhi with a direction that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary be noticed to appear before the competent Government Medical Authority to determine as accurately as possible his age as on 9.9.1970. Pursuant to the said order, a Medical Board was constituted and it was found that as on 19.9.1992 Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was 40 to 45 years of age. Further plea of the landholder is that in the light of the direction of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna following documents were filed before the Collector:- “1. Genealogical Table of land holder submitted by the Anchal Adhikari in his verification report. 2. A certified copy of Birth register maintained by the Sitamarhi Municipality in which the date of Birth of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was shown as 26.4.1951. 3. The Voter list of the Assembly Election in which the age of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was shown as 29 years on 1.1.1980. 4. The affidavit of Upendra Kumar Tiwary the father of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. 5. Affidavit of Jyotshi Ramanand Jha.” 15. The District Collector, Sitamarhi thereafter vide his order dated 16. 9. 1996 came to a definite finding of the fact that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was major as on 9.9.1970. In view of the direction of the Additional Member Board of Revenue that on the basis of the medical report, other evidence produced by Pankaj Kumar Tiwary as well as by the State before the Collector, the Revision application will be decided,. all the documents were sent to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. It is reiterated by the landholder (Appellants herein) in their pleadings that the State of Bihar did not file any chit of paper in support of the claim that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was minor as on 9.9.1970. 6. Thereafter the Additional Member, Board of Revenue heard the revision application on 12.10. It is reiterated by the landholder (Appellants herein) in their pleadings that the State of Bihar did not file any chit of paper in support of the claim that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was minor as on 9.9.1970. 6. Thereafter the Additional Member, Board of Revenue heard the revision application on 12.10. 1996 and passed the order after about one year on 22.9.1997, dismissing the revision application filed on behalf of the landholder holding Pankaj Kumar Tiwary to be a minor as on 9.9.1970 and therefore, he was not entitled to have any separate unit. 17. A writ application was filed thereafter on behalf of the landholders vide CWJC No. 1103 of 1998 against the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 22.9.1997 (Annexured-7), which mainly related to the question of majority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. Another writ application vide CWJC No. 1077 of 1998 was also filed but the same related to the plea of illegality committed by the authority in the matter of classification of lands and, therefore, the same is not being discussed in the present judgment. The writ applications were disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 17.8.1998 with the following direction as regard the majority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary:- “ As in the present case aforesaid procedure was not followed by the revisional authority, I set aside the impugned revisional order so far as it relates to decision with respect to age of petitioner Pankaj Kumar Tiwary is concerned and remit the matter to the revisional authority to decide the same on the basis of the report submitted by the Medical Board. If the revisional authority wants to differ with such findings or wants to know whether the same is based on ossification test, or not, in that case the authority will have to give reason for the same and, if necessary may call a report of ossification report, if no ossification report was done by the Medical Board the revisional authority should remit the matter to the Medical Board for a fresh test after following the ossification test of said petitioner….” 18. Pankaj Kumar Tiwary died subsequently in an accident, before ossification test could be conducted, leaving behind his widow and three minor daughters as his legal heirs and legal representatives. Pankaj Kumar Tiwary died subsequently in an accident, before ossification test could be conducted, leaving behind his widow and three minor daughters as his legal heirs and legal representatives. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, thereafter, by the impugned order dated 1.11.2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) held Pankaj Kumar Tiwary to be a minor mainly on the ground that landholder could not establish that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was major as on 9.9.1970. He rejected earlier opinion of the medical Board on the ground that as no ossification test could be performed, the opinion of the Medical Board on the basis of medical verification was not acceptable. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue in his order dated 1.11.2000 discussed in detail the documents submitted on behalf of the landholder to establish that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a major as on 9.9.1970 and rejected them on the ground, inter alia, that supporting records were not available in the Municipality. Referring to the certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School, the Additional Member Board of Revenue in his order recorded that the certificates/documents submitted to establish majority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary deserved to be thrown in his dustbin and the affidavit of his father Upendra Kumar Tiwary in support of his age was self serving document created to show that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was major as on 9.9.1970. He rejected the horoscope as well as age recorded in the electoral roll as those were not based on any authentic documents. From the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, however, it appears that there was no evidence/documents produced on behalf of the State of Bihar to support the fact that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor child as on 9.9.1970. 19. Aggrieved by the order of Additional Member, Board of Revenue, the wife of Pavitar Tiwary alias Ram Pavitar Tiwary, his sons and the legal heirs of late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary filed the writ application vide CWJC No. 1151 of 2001 on various grounds including the ground that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue failed to appreciate the documents and evidence brought on record in support of the majority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. During the pendency of the writ application Sarswati Devi, wife of Ram Pavitar Tiwary died and her name was ordered to be expunged from the array of the parties. During the pendency of the writ application Sarswati Devi, wife of Ram Pavitar Tiwary died and her name was ordered to be expunged from the array of the parties. The writ application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 11.5.2010 which has been questioned in the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court. 20. Counter affidavit was filed in CWJC No. 1151 of 2001 asserting that no document was produced in support of the fact that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was major as on 9.9.1970. It has been asserted in the counter affidavit that grant of unit to Pankaj Kumar Tiwary by the Additional Collector was not based on proof of age, rather it was granted on the basis of the return filed by the landholder as well as incorrect verification report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari without any proof of majority. It has been asserted in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit…. “When the writ petitioners claim a unit for Pankaj Kumar Tiwary as major on 9.9.1970, onus to prove the same lies upon them which they could not discharge either in appeal or in Revision before the Board of Revenue”. 21. It is in the background of these facts it has to be considered whether the onus probandi was upon the State to establish that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor in order to deny him one unit before the Appellate authority i.e. the Collector, Sitamarhi as no such objection was raised before the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi on behalf of the State of Bihar on the verification report submitted by Anchal Adhikari indicating Pankaj Kumar Tiwary to be more than 18 years (19 years) as on 9.9.1970. 22. Mr. Sashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that onus to prove that a person was a minor under the Act lay upon the State so as to deny him one unit. He has contended that in case of any doubt or difficulty the authorities/ Courts should lean in favour of the landholder, the provisions of the Act being confiscatory in nature. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 477; Balmukund Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and others. 23. Mr. He has contended that in case of any doubt or difficulty the authorities/ Courts should lean in favour of the landholder, the provisions of the Act being confiscatory in nature. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (2) PLJR 477; Balmukund Mandal Vs. the State of Bihar and others. 23. Mr. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, referring to impugned order dated 1.11.2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) strenuously contended that the evidence produced before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue by/on behalf of land holder were not trust worthy and were in fact created only to make out a case only for the purpose of grant of a unit under the Act for Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. According to him duly was cast on the land holders to establish beyond doubt, the majority of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary as on 9.9.1970. 24. The issue of onus to prove the claim of minority under the Act has been dealt with in a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1997(2) PLJR 477 (Balmukund Mandal Vs. State of Bihar and others). Paragraph 5 of the judgment reads as under:- “5. It has been observed in a series of decisions by this Court that the onus to prove that a person was minor lay upon the State. No evidence, whatsoever, has been laid in this case on behalf of the State to controvert the claim of petitioner nos.3 and 4 that they had already attained majority on the appointed day, that is 9.9.1970. The petitioners have produced all possible evidence in support of their claim, such as the affidavit of the father (Petitioner no.1), the horoscope and the medical certificates of the Civil Assistant Surgeon of Forbesganj, before respondent no.4. The authorities, however, preferred to place reliance upon and determine the age according to the dates of birth of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 appearing in their matriculation certificates and have rejected other evidence to the contrary, produced on behalf of the petitioners”. 25. It is to be noted that in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, the respondent-State of Bihar took up a plea that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was an educated person and he must be having a certificate which he concealed from the Court. 25. It is to be noted that in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit, the respondent-State of Bihar took up a plea that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was an educated person and he must be having a certificate which he concealed from the Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balmukund Mandal vs. State of Bihar and others (ibid) has considered the value of entry of date of birth in school admission register, paragraph 6 of the judgment as reproduced hereinbelow:- “6. The Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Priya Brat Narayan Singh and others (AIR 1965 SC 288) had occasion to consider the value of the entry of the date of birth in school admission register and in that connection observed that in actual life, it often happens that persons giving false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life, he would have an advantage when seeking public service. Petitioner no.1, the father of petitioner nos. 3 and 4, has actually in his affidavit that was filed before the authorities, has stated that an incorrect date of birth of petitioners 3 and 4 was given in the school for the purpose of securing advantage in future. In view of the exparte scientific in nature, and appear to me so convincing, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter to respondent no.4 namely the Additional Sub-divisional Officer, Madhepura, for deciding the question of the age of petitioner nos. 3 and 4 afresh. Having examined the materials on record, I am of the view that the respondents 2 to 4 were not right in basing their conclusions only on the matriculation certificates and rejecting the other evidence on record altogether, particularly when the State did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. I would accordingly, hold that the order of respondent no.4 affirmed in appeal by the Collector and on revision by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, to this extent is erroneous and must be set aside”. 26. It is not the case of the State that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary ever evaded any kind of medical test to be held for the purpose of determination of age as on 9.9.1970. In an unfortunate situation, he died before ossification test could be held. 26. It is not the case of the State that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary ever evaded any kind of medical test to be held for the purpose of determination of age as on 9.9.1970. In an unfortunate situation, he died before ossification test could be held. However, prior to his death there was a verification report by the Circle Officer, wherein he was described 19 years of age as on 9.9.1970; finding by the Additional Collector treating him to be major; as well as report of a medical test and the finding of the Collector, Sitamarhi that he was above 18 years as on 9.9.1970. In such circumstance, the onus was heavy upon the respondent-State of Bihar to prove on the basis of cogent material that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was minor as on 9.9.1970. It has been rightly submitted on behalf of the appellants that the provisions of the Act are confiscatory in nature under which the landholder is deprived of his land, though having valid title to the same, and therefore in case of doubt or difficulty Courts/authority shall lean in favour of the landholder. 27. I may quote here extract from the King’s Bench Division judgment of Lord Denning,J in Miller Vs. Minister of Pensions ( 1947) 2 All E R 372 which succinctly enunciates how the conflicting evidences are to be weighed by a Tribunal/Court:- “If at the end of the case, the evidence turns the scale definitely one way or the other, the tribunal must decide accordingly, but if the evidence is so evenly balanced that the tribunal is unable to come to a determinate conclusion one way or the other, then the man must be given benefit of doubt. This means that the case must be decided in favour of the man unless the evidence against him reaches the same degree of cogency as is required to discharge a burden in a civil case. That degree is well settled. It must carry a reasonable degree of probability, but not so high as is required in a criminal case. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: “We think it more probable than not,” the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not”. 28. In the present case, no evidence was produced or led on behalf of the State of Bihar to prove that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor. If the evidence is such that the tribunal can say: “We think it more probable than not,” the burden is discharged, but, if the probabilities are equal, it is not”. 28. In the present case, no evidence was produced or led on behalf of the State of Bihar to prove that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor. State of Bihar chose not to raise statutory objection before the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. The Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority just questioned the authenticity of the entry of date of birth of Pankaj Kumar Tiwary and refused to grant one unit in his favour on the ground that the land holders failed to prove his majority. This approach of the authorities is not rational and reasonable. 29. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the onus was heavy upon the State of Bihar in the facts and circumstances of the case to establish that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor as on 9.9.1970 as it was the State which questioned the verification report submitted by the Circle Officer and draft publication under Section 10(2) of the Act which the respondent-State of Bihar miserably failed to discharge. In such view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 1.11.2000 (Annexure-0 to the writ petition) in Revision case No. 209 of 1985 is set aside. The Appellate order passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi dated 7.5.1985,( Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby he held Pankaj Kumar Tiwary to be a minor is also set aside, the State having failed to discharge its onus before the Appellate authority to prove that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970. 30. As the State has failed to prove the fact that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was a minor, the matter has to be decided basing on the material and evidence available on record. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it was the duty of the State to prove that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was not a major. The State failed to discharge its duty, its onus to prove minority of late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. I accordingly, hold that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was entitled to one unit on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer and order of Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. The State failed to discharge its duty, its onus to prove minority of late Pankaj Kumar Tiwary. I accordingly, hold that Pankaj Kumar Tiwary was entitled to one unit on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer and order of Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. The respondents are directed to proceed accordingly for final publication under Section 11 of the Act. 31. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 11.5.2010 passed in CWJC No. 1151 of 2011 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs. T. Meena Kumari, J:- I agree