MOHAN KANWAR RANAWAT Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the judgment of the respondents No. 1 to 3 dated 31 -12 -1971 (Annexure 3), 7 -3 -1975 (Annexure 4) and 6 -10 -1976 (Annexure 5) respectively by which the transfers of the agricultural land made by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5 were not recognised under Section 30DD, Rajasthan Tenancy Act (here in after to be called as 'the Act') and the separate share of late Mohan Kanwar Jagtawatji, mother of the petitioner No. 2, was also not recognised while calculating the extent of ceiling area under Section 30 -C of the Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) RAISINGH , husband of the petitioner No. 1, had khatedari land measuring 1347 Bighas 9 Biswas, more specifically described in Schedule 'A' of the writ petition. He died on 13 -2 -1958. In November 1971, proceedings under Section 30 -C of the Act and Rules 9 and 10, Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government) Rules, 1963 (here in after to be called as 'the Rules') for the determination of the ceiling area were taken against the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner No. 1 filed objections stating that several bighas of land had been transferred to various purchasers and the co -widow of late Raisingh, Mohan Kanwar Jagtawat, had also equal share in the land left by the deseased. The transfers made in favour of the petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 and separate share of Mst. Mohan Kanwar Jagtawat were not recognised by the respondent No. 3 vide his judgment, Annexure 3. The petitioner No. 1 filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur It was dismissed by him by his judgment, Annexme -4. Thereafter, revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and it was also dismissed by its judgment, Annexure -5.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Advocate duly supported the judgments - Annexures -3, 4 and 5. He contended that there is no error apparent on the record in any of these judgments and they are not contrary to law.