GYAN KANWAR Vs. B O R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court dated 10/12/1996 whereby the writ petition No. 851/90 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows. After coming into force of the provisions of Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, proceedings were initiated by the S. D. O. , Parbatsar against late Shri Kalyan Singh for determination of the ceiling area. After holding the inquiry, the learned S. D. O. came to the conclusion that no surplus land was being held by Shri Kalyan Singh. Ceiling proceedings were, therefore, dropped by his order dated 6/11/1971. However, the State Government passed an order on 4/2/1981 u/s. 15 (2) of the Imposition of Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the Additional Collector was directed to re-open the case of Kalyan Singh and render decision afresh. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Kalyan Singh expired and the present appellants were taken on record as his legal representatives. Pursuant to the order dated 4/2/1981, the learned Additional Collector conducted inquiry and came to the conclusion that late Kalyan Singh was holding 359. 4 bighas of land which also included land held by his sons. After computation, he declared 156. 05 bighas of land (Barani Gr. II) as surplus by his order dated 18/6/1984. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was partly allowed. THE Board of Revenue held that all the sons of Kalyan Singh could not be clubbed for the purpose of determination of ceiling area in respect of Kalyan Singh. Accordingly, after computation, the Board of Revenue held that late Kalyan Singh was holding 46. 56 standard acres and since he was entitled to hold only 30 standard acres. THE remaining land 16. 5 standard acres was decla- red as surplus by an order dated 4/6/1989.

(3.) AFTER making extensive reference to the above judgment, we are satisfied that the D. B. considered the matter in all respects and after exhaustive discussion held that Rule 19 is not ultravires of Sec. 30-C of the Act. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the D. B. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to accede to the arguments of Shri Sharma for making a reference to re-consider the above judgment. For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal. .