KANTA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A ceiling proceeding under chap. III-B of the Raja-sthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated against Shri Bajrang Lal, father of the petitioner. Shri Bajrang Lal submitted a declaration showing himself, his wife, son and mother as members of his family. Bajrang Lal also took the plea that he had sold 18 biswas of land to Kishore and Ram Narain and as such the aforesaid land should be excluded Bajrang Lal further took the plea that he had handed over possession of certain portions of agricultural land to his mother and the son. Learned S. D. O. Baran, in his judgment, Annexure-4 dated 31-1075 held that according to the declaration made by Bajrang Lal, there were four members in his family. As regards the sale made in favour of Kishore and Ram Narain, neither any document nor any other evidence was produced. He further held that no document was produced to show that possession was handed over to the mother and the son. He further found that the son Kanta Prasad was minor and the mother came within the definition of family. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned S. D. O. held that Bajrang Lal was entitled to keep 30 standard acres of land and declared 28 standard acres of land in excess. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the S. D. O., Bajrang Lal filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority upheld the order of the S.D.O. and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, two revisions were filed before the Board of Revenue, one by Mst. Keshar widow of Gajanand (mother of Bajrang Lal) and Kanta Prasad son of Bajrang Lal and the other by Bajrang Lal. It was argued before the Board of Revenue that the land was ancestral property, the widowed mother was entitled to be considered as a separate unit, Mst. Keshar and Kanta Prasad were possessing separate holdings and their land ought not to have been clubbed with that of Bajrang Lal. It was further submitted that the mother cannot be dependent on the son and she was in possession of land in her own right. The declaration made by Bajrang Lal that the widowed mother was dependent on him was done inadvertently and there was no estoppel in withdrawing the said declaration. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 12-12-1978, did not agree with the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and found that Bajrang Lal had made a declaration on oath, in which mother had been shown as dependent on him. Minor sons and mother both were shown as dependants, as such no separate land could be given for them. In the result both the revisions were rejected and the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority was affirmed. Two review petitions were then filed against the judgment of Board of Revenue, dated 12-12-1978, but the same were also dismissed by the Board by its order, dated Jan, 30, 1981.

(2.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid decisions of the Board of Revenue, Kanta Prasad son of Bajrang Lal has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The only point urged by Mr. Bhan-dari, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land of Smt. Keshar could not be clubbed wife the land of her son Bajrang Lal. It is contended that Smt, Keshar was holding the land separately in her own right and was not dependent on her son and was entitled to be treated as a separate unit. It was contended that the term 'Family' is denned in Section 30-B (a) of Chapter III-B of the Act is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be struck down. In this regard, it was further contended that the inclusion of the land of the widowed mother of the husband so dependent in the definition of family was violative of Article 14 as it was discriminatory on the ground of sex and was therefore, violative of Article