GANPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri Sharma has restricted his challenge only to the order passed by the Revenue Board, Annex. 5, dated 25.9.87. The Additional Collector by his order dated 28.3.84, Annex. 4, after making necessary enquiry and hearing the petitioners on notice, Annex. 3, came to the conclusion that the assessee was holding 343 bighas 9 biswas of land on 1.4.1966, whereas, he was entitled to keep 35 standard acres i.e. equivalent to 312 bighas and 10 biswas. Thus, 30 bighas 19 biswas land was declared as surplus land. Aggrieved by that order the State Govt. preferred an appeal No. 626/84 before the Board of Revenue under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act,1973 (for short the Act). In appeal the decision was challen- ged on several grounds. But, the same was allowed only on one ground as the Revenue Board found that the number of family members were 5 on 14.1.1966 and not 6 as held by the Addl. Collector. Therefore, the appeal was partly allowed and the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Annex. 4) declaring 30.19 bighas surplus land was modified and it was held that 75.12 bighas land was in excess and decla- red to be surplus land and ordered to be acquired. The Revenue Board has mainly relied upon the statement of the assessee Ganpat Singh made on 30.9.83 stating that : *********

(2.) IT was found that in the return submitted by the assessee on 21.1.1977 that he had not shown the name of Shanker Singh as his family member. Review petition was filed before the Revenue Board by the assessee Ganpat Singh on the ground that Shanker Singh in none else but Vijayendra Singh, therefore, the evidence of Ganpat Singh should have been read accordingly. However, the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that assessee had not stated the name of Vijayendra Singh, therefore rejected the review petition. Aggrieved by that order (Annex. 5 and 6) Ganpat Singh filed this petition before this Court at the age of 83 in the year 1988. Unfortunately, during the pendency of this writ petition he has expired, therefore, his legal representatives have come on record and they have prosecuted this peti- tion.