KESAR DAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate order, direction or a writ for quashing the orders passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 and for declaring that the petitioner and his son Kami Dan are not holding any surplus land or for remanding the matter to make proper inquiry.

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated as follows. Ceiling proceedings under old Ceiling Law i.e. under Chapter III-B (since repealed) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were initiated against Ratan Dan, father of the petitioner. During the pendency of the above proceedings,Shri Ratan Dan expired on 31/8/74. After inquiry, the authorised officer, namely, S.D.O., Bhinmal, vide his order dated 30-6-75, held that the petitioner was entitled to retain only 30 standard acres of land and the remaining 80.04 standard acres, being surplus land, be acquired by the Govt. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who accepted the same vide his order dated 4-9-75 and remanded the matter to the S.D.O. to decide the case afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and making inquiry regarding the size of the family of the petitioner as on 1-4-66. The State filed a revision petition against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30-9-76. In pursuance of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 1-4-66, the S. D.O., Bhinmal again made the inquiry regarding the family of the deceased Ratandan and held that on the relevant date 1-4-66, the family of the petitioner consisted of his father, himself, his minor daughter Bhanwari Bai, minor son karni Dan and wife Suraj Bai. The S.D.O. further held that other members of the family were born after 1-4-66. In view of the above finding, the learned S.D.O. reiterated his previous decision. The petitioner again agitated the matter by filing an appeal against the order of JI The learned S.D.O. before the Revenue Appellate Authority who vide his order dated 4-7-80 dismissed the same. Undaunted, the petitioner filed a revision before Board of Revenue but it was also dismissed vide order dated 1-9-86. Aggrieved by all the above decisions, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner contended before the authorities below that the land held by Ratan Dan was ancestral inasmuch as his father was a Jagirdar and after resumption of Jagir, he became a Khatedar tenant. It was further contended that even according to the finding given by the learned S.D.O., the family of Shri Ratan Dan consisted of three units according to the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (fixation of ceiling land) Govt. Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was also contended by the petitioner that at the relevant time, the petitioner was an adult member of the family. He and his minor son were not at all dependent upon Ratan Dan. Since the petitioner and his son Karni Dan were entitled to equal share in the Joint Hindu Family Property of deceased Ratan Dan and since they were not dependent on Ratan Dan, the land could not be clubbed together with the land of deceased Ratan Dan. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Courts below did not inquire about these facts and did not record any finding.

(3.) Learned counsel has placed reliance on Rampratap Vs. State of Raj, 1988 (2) RLR 521 and Jugal Kishore Vs. S.D.O., Baran, 1988 (2) RLR 595 .