DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order at Annex.2 passed by the Authorised Officer on 10.7.1979 for the acquisition of 48 acres of land in ceiling proceedings under the New Ceiling Act, which was confirmed in appeal by the learned Collector by his order dated 12.11.1982 (Annex.3) and also by the Board of Revenue in appeal on 4.1.1989 (Anne- xure 4). These orders at Annexs. 2,3 and 4 are challenged before this court by the petitioner by way of this petition. (2). Learned counsel Mr.Bhoot for the petitioner submitted that the Authorised Officer, Collector and the Board of Revenue have committed an error in not calculating the share of the major grand son of the petitioner Devi Singh. He submi- tted that if the share of the major grand son was considered, then there would not have been any surplus land. (3). `Family' is defined under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1973 (for short `the Act'). `Family' shall mean a family consisting of husband,wife and their children but excluding married minor daughter. In the instant case, the petitioner Devi Singh has two major sons Kushal Singh and Sohan Singh alongwith his grand major son Richpal Singh son of Sohan Singh staying together with Devi Singh. Considering the definition of `Family', the Authorised Officer, Collector as well as the Board of Revenue held that the major grand son cannot be included in the definition of Family. Therefore, he is not enti- tled for separate unit. The Board of Revenue has relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of Angrez Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan - Ceiling Appeal No. 403/85/ Ganganagar decided on 8.11.88 (1) taking the view that the words `adult son' in the definition of separate unit shall mean the `adult son's branch' and so the adult son's branch which may include his own adult son, will get the benefit of separate unit. (4). `Separate Unit' is defined under Section 2(m) of Act. `Separate Unit' means an adult son and in case of his death, his widow and children, if any. Relying upon this definition, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that the widow and children of the adult son in case of his death will be considered as separate unit. If the adult son is alive, then the sons of an adult son cannot be con- sidered as a separate unit. He, therefore, submitted that all the authorities below have rightly excluded the share of adult grand son of the petitioner. (5). Coming to the definition of `family' it is clear that the family includes husband, wife and their children but it excludes only married minor daughter. Children includes grand children and if a grand child is a major, then his share will have to be counted. The definition of `separate unit' is helpful only when the adult son is no more and in case of his death, his widow and children, if any, will be con- sidered as `separate unit.' (6). In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that all the authorities below have committed a grave error in not considering the share of the major grand son Richpal Singh of the petitioner Devi Singh. (7). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed, the impugned or- ders at Annex. 2, 3 and 4 are hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, it is held that there was no surplus land with the petitioner.