STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HANS RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is directed against order dt. 22.04.1997 whereby the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner -respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as 'the respondent') herein against the order dt. 04.06.1990 passed by the Board of Revenue affirming the order dt. 08.07.1985 of Collector, Jalore directing resumption of 19.06 acre of surplus land vested in the Government and order dt. 24.07.1990 dismissing the review application preferred by the respondent for review of order dt. 04.06.1990, has been allowed and accordingly, aforesaid orders dt. 08.07.1985, 04.06.1990 and 24.07.1990 have been quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE relevant facts in nutshell are that the ceiling proceedings were initiated against the respondent under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act of 1973' hereinafter) but the same were dropped vide order dt. 19.08.1975 of Sub Divisional Officer (in short 'SDM), Jalore. However, the ceiling proceedings were reopened by the State Government under Section 15(1) of the Act of 1973 and the matter was referred to the Collector, Jalore for decision afresh in accordance with law.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order dt. 18.07.1985, the respondent preferred an appeal under Section 23(2A) of the Act of 1973 before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the Collector has erred in holding that the transfer of 70 bighas 14 biswas land made by the respondent in favour of Shri Khuman Singh by way of registered sale deed dt. 21.07.1972 is not recognizable. That apart, it was submitted that the land in question belonged to father of the respondent, Shri Chandan Singh and it was entered in the name of respondent vide mutation No. 51 dt. 14.04.1978. Accordingly, it was contended that since Shri Chandan Singh left behind his minor son, the respondent herein and widow Smt. Habat Kanwar, after death of Shri Chandan Singh, his widow and the son inherited the land in equal shares, therefore, the respondent Hans Raj and widow of Smt. Habat Kanwar should have been treated as separate assessees and each of them were entitled to retain 46 acre of irrigated land.