CHANDER KAUR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue dated 26.6.1989 (Annex.2), by which the judgment and order of the Ceiling Authority dated 20.3.1986 has been up-held on different grounds not agreeing with the grounds on which the said Authority had assessed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and also against the review petition dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment and order dated 14.8.89 (Annex.3).

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that one Ujagar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, was assessed under the Ceiling Law (Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) and the Authority, vide order dated 31.8.1971, dropped the proceedings holding that there was no surplus land with him. After commencement of the new Act, i.e. the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, the proceedings were re-opened under the provisions of Sec. 15(2) and Ujagar Singh was assessed and the assessment order dated 30.3.86 was passed declaring that he possessed 74.15 Bighas land excess to the ceiling area. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioners preferred the appeal before the Board of Revenue which was decided vide judgment and order dated 26.6.89. THE reasoning given by the Prescribed Authority was not accepted by the Board of Revenue but it based the decision on the ground that the said assessee Ujagar Singh had transferred the land measuring 99.14 Bighas to his four sons, viz., Jang Singh, Chand Singh, Nand Singh and Harnek Singh, who are petitioners before this Court in equal shares, vide Settlement Deed dated 19.5.1955. Though the said settlement deed was prior to 25.2.1958 but the Authority did not recognise it and included the said land also while assessing the ceiling area of the said assessee Ujagar Singh and treated his sons as members of his family. THE Board of Revenue held that as on 1.4.1966 Ujagar Singh was having 67.17. Bighas land excluding the land already transferred to his four sons by Settlement dated 19.5.1955 and his sons cannot be included as his "family" only for the reason that they could not have been dependant upon him after the said settlement and there were only two family members, he was entitled to retain only 46.8 Bighas of land and, thus, 21.9 Bighas of land was declared surplus. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) IN Ramcharan Das vs. Girja Nandani Devi (7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that settlement among the family members does not amount to transfer for the reason that by settlement, each party take a share in the property by virtue of independent title which is admitted to that extent by the other parties. While deciding the said case, the Apex Court placed reliance upon various judgments of the Privy Council including Mst. Hiran Babi vs. Mst. Sohan Bibi (8); Rangaswami Gounden vs. Nachiappa Gounden (9); Sureshwar Misser vs. Maheshrani Misrain (10); and Man Singh vs. Nowlakhbati (11).