RAM PRATAP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. Shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. The petitioners, (Ram Pratap, Kewal Chand, Padam Kumar and Mabaveer Prasad), claimed themselves as Khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages Gamach (308 Bighas 9 Biswas) and Bhawanipura (46 Bighas 10 Biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by Dhanna and Laxmi Narain on the death of one, Shri Onkar. According to the petitioners, on the death of Dhanna Lal, the parties partitioned co -parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1 -4 -1966 by giving effect also co the Jamabandi of S.Ys 2020 to 2023. In ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the orders were passed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17 -11 -1976 (Ann -D) of the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2); dated 25 8 -1977 (Ann -E) along with Ann. B dated 9th June, 1975 of the Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3), and dated 29 -1 -1972 (Ann. A) of the Assistant Collector (Ceiling) Bundi (respondent No. 4).

(2.) THE Assistant Collector (respondent No. 4) while deciding the ceiling proceedings admitted the fact of partition but, declared 96 Bighas 14 Biswas of land as surplus one with the petition -against which the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and then the petitioners filed revision petition before the Revenue but without any success.

(3.) MANIFOLD contention on behalf of the petitioners by Shri S.N. Pareek learned counsel, is that the land comprising of Khasras Nos. 189 & 225 measuring 25 Bighas 14 Biswas, was given to Smt. Sushila d/o Ram Pratt p by Dhanna which was mutated in her name which was recorded and entered in the Jama Bandi of S.Y. 2018 i.e. prior to 1 -41966 - -but the same was calculated with the land of the petitioners while determining the ceiling area which could not have been calculated; that the land in dispute being joint Hindu family property apart from ancestral in the hands of the petitioners, the revenue courts fell in error in calculating the share of Paras Chand Ajit Kumar & Rakesh Kumar sons of Ram Pratap with the share of Ram Pratap treating them as minor while upholding the fact of partition; and that, the revenue authorities fell in error in holding that the whole of the lands in the petitioners was irrigated one but, the ceiling area of the petitioners was not determined as per the soil classification mentioned in the revenue records.