PURSHOTTAM DAS Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition arises out of ceilling proceedings under chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'old Ceilling law' ). THE assessee in this case was one Saraswati Das who died in April, 1972 and as such till the appointed date 1. 04. 1966 he was alive. Ceiling proceedings under the aforesaid Chapter III B of the Old Ceilling Law were initiated against the aforesaid assessee Sarawasti Das and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura, under his order dt. 15. 12. 1971 held that Saraswati Das was in possession of 184 standard acres of land in excess of his ceiling area. An appeal was filed against the aforesaid order of S. D. O. before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and the said authority under his order dated 24. 7. 1974 partly allowed the appeal and held that 140 standard acres of land of Saraswati Das and his wife and 24 standard acres of land of Purshottom was liable to be resumed being excess of the ceiling area of Saraswati Das. He remanded the case to the S. D. O. with a direction that an opportunity be given to the appellants to give an option to retain the land. THE said order of Revenue Appellate Authority was challenged by the revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue under his order dated 26. 05. 1977 dismissed the revision petition. Reveiw petition was also filed of 'the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 30. 6. 80 dismissed the same.

(2.) AFTER the decision of the case by the Revenue Appellate Authority and remand of the case for exercise of option by the assessees, the S. D. O. held that because the assessees had failed to exercise their option, they are not entitled to exercise any option. It appears that in the option proceedings on behalf of assessees certain objections were also raised and under the aforesaid objections as attempt was made to reopen the matter so far as vesting of excess vacant land in the State in concerned but the learned S. D. O. refused to go into that question. Again the order of S. D. O. refusing to allow the assessees to reagitate the points and refusing to give an opportunity to exercise option, the matter was again taken before the Revenue Appellate Authority who by his order dated 11. 7. 75 rejected the appeal against the order of S. D. O. Gulabpura dated 29. 5. 75 and, so again a revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 1. 03. 1977 rejected the revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED Revenue Courts have not recognised that partition, which was not through the court and which was not under a registered document, as it was done with a view to defeat the provisions of law. Deceased Saraswati Das or the petitioners never came out as to when the alleged partition through an unregistered dead took place. In the reply it is stated that despite opportunities Saraswati Das did not produce the alleged partition deed. Revenue Courts have not placed reliance on the alleged partition for the reasons stated and we find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding in view of the fact that the partition is said to be an unregistered and that too was not filed before the authorities.