AMBSINGH Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BHINMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated October 27,1978 (Anx-4) whereby the Board of Revenue allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated October 20, 1975 (Anx. 2) and restored the order of the learned S.D.O. dated May 31, 1975 (Anx.l). The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhinmal decided the petitioners ceilling case by his order Anx.l He recorded that the portion is recognisable and acceptable but as the petitioners being the cognate are entitled to equal shares. On that basis the Sub-Divisional Officer determined the ceiling area of the petitioners. Each of the petitioners was entitled to 37.12 standard acres considering the number of members of the family of Jaisingh as 8, he found that no part of share of his land is resumable whereas the number of the family members of the petitioner Ambsingh was less than five so he found that 7.12 standard acres land is resumable. Consequently he ordered that 51 Bighas 1 Biswa land as specified in his order shall vest in the State Government in accordance with the option. The Revenue Appellate Authority on separate appeals preferred by the petitioners in view of the partition effected between the petitioners found that no land of petitioner Jaisingh is liable to be resumed as the land in his possession, is not in excess of the ceiling area whereas 23 Bighas 1 Biswas land of petitioner Ambsingh is liable to resumed of the Khasras Nos-108 and 36. The State of Rajasthan preferred revision against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the revision was allowed by the Board.

(2.) THE petitioners' case is that before few months of the death of the petitioner's father-in-law Shri Motisingh their father had partitioned the land between the petitioners in 1958 and in that partition petitioner No. 1 Ambsingh received 205 Bighas 11 Biswas whereas petitioner No. 2 Jaisingh 261 Bighas. At the time of the partition both the petitioners were married. THE petitioner's father stated that the land which fell to the share of petitioner No. 1 was valuable, fertile and plain whereas the land of petitioner No. 2 was sloppy and the location of his land was not better than petitioner No. 1. It was also stated that according to the classification 18 Bighas 11 Biswas land of petitioner No.l is B.A. (chahi) acres Where's 11 Bighas of land of the petitioner is B.A. (chahi). THE petitioners' further case is that the partition deed was executed by the petitioners in a Bahi on January 21, 1968 and a copy of the same was transferred for mutation on February 8, 1969 and mutation was sanctioned on October 21,1971. Subsequently the petitioner got the deed of partition registered on August 25, 1970 wherein it was recorded that partition of the agricultural land had already been effected between the petitioners. THE petitioners challenged the order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that when once the partition has taken place between the petitioners for the purpose of determining ceiling area of the petitioners the partition ought to have been recognised and the ceiling area of the each of the petitioner could have been determined in the light of the actual partition which had taken place between the petitioners. Oral partition had taken place as far back as 1958. Subsequently it was executed in the Bahi on January 21, 1968 and in pursuance of which mutation was effected and thereafter partition-deed was also registered. THE Board of Revenue erred in not determining the ceiling area of the petitioners individually on the basis of the actual partition and had wrongly found that the S.D.O. was right in proceeding to determine the ceiling area applicable to the petitioners, on the basis that both the petitioners and brothers and will receive equal shares in the total land of 466 Bighas and 11 Biswas.

(3.) IN this result, this writ petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.