- (1.)Shri Mag Singh has challenged the order of a learned single Member of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, dt. 9-9-75 dismissing the petitioner's revision against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur dt. 19-8-75 dismissing his appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhirmal passed on 10-1-73 directing the land in excess of the ceiling limit of Smt. Lal Kanwar widow of Takhat Singh may be acquired, as barred by time.
(2.)I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate.
(3.)The facts briefly stated and relevant for the purposes of this order are that the land in dispute originally stood in the name of Takhat Singh husband of Smt. Lal Kanwar as his khudkast after the resumption of his jagir in village Galife. On the death of Shri Takhat Singh, the land was mutated in the name of Smt. Lal Kanwar and proceedings under Chap. III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') for determining the ceiling area to which Smt. Lal Kanwar was entitled were taken. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, found that Smt. Lal Kanwar had 172.43 Bighas equal to 60.01 standard acres of land in her possession in excess of the ceiling limit and, therefore, he directed that the same may be resumed. Smt. Lal Kanwar indicated her option with regard to the lands, she wanted to surrender and the Sub-Divisional Officer directed that those lands may be taken possession of by the State. Accordingly, those lands are alleged to have been taken possession of by the Naib-Tahsildar on 29-3-73. The case of the petitioner Mag Singh is that the land standing in the name of Takhat Singh was the joint ancestral land of Takhat Singh and himself and after the death of Takhat Singh, there had been a partition between him and Smt. Lal Kanwar widow of Takhat Singh by which half of the land fell to his share. He was not given any notice of the ceiling proceedings and the proceedings were only taken against Smt. Lal Kanwar holding the whole land to be belonging to her and as a consequence excess land was ordered to be taken possession of by the State. Smt. Lal Kanwar gave option in respect of those parcels of land which had fallen to the petitioner's share by the aforesaid partition and thus he was being deprived of his land without hearing. He, therefore, filed an appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinmal,dt.10-1-73 before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur. However, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was of the opinion that that appeal was barred by time inasmuch as although the order dt.10-1-73 may not have been passed in the presence of or with notice to the present petitioner, he had certainly acquired knowledge of that order when he signed the declaration dt. 29-3-73 of the Naib-Tehsildar taking possession of the surplus lands and, therefore, the appeal filed on 15-10-73 was barred by time. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The Board dismissed that revision holding that the revision was not competent and that the petitioner could have filed an appeal against that order if he had such a right. It is against this order of the Board dt.9-9-75 that the petitioner is aggrieved and he has come up before this Court.