VERMA, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THE petitioner No.1 Raj Gajendra Singh is the husband of the petitioner No.2 and father of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and they are challenging the orders dated 9.3.1977 (Annexure-G), 30.9.1977 (Annexure-H), 19.11.1985 (Annexure-P) and 18.1.1986 (Annexure-Q) with the further submission that the land recorded in the name of deceased Chandra Sen had devolved on the petitioner Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 and were, therefore, entitled to retain the area equal to 30 standard acres as separate units under the Rajasthan Imposition of Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder. Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the rules were initiated against Raj Gajendra Singh in the year 1971 by the SDO, Kota. The SDO, Kota after hearing the petitioner had decided that in addition to Raj Gajendra Singh, his three younger brothers Kishan Singh, Chanchal Singh and Laxman Singh were to be considered as separate units for the purpose of ceiling and allowed 30 standard acres to each of them on the resumption of excess land by its order dated 10.5.1976. This order was challenged in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota and the case was remanded back to the SDO by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 4.8.1976. The SDO again decided the case on 9.3.1977 by maintaining the earlier order as passed on 7.5.1976. The order dated 9.3.1977 (Annexure-G) was again challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota, the appeal, was rejected on 30.9.1977 vide Annexure-H. A revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which had also been dismissed on 19.11.1985 vide Annexure-P. The petitioner had submitted before the Board of Revenue that Jagir of Kunadi was an `impartible' state in the erstwhile State of Kota and succession was governed by the rule of primogeniture. It was further submitted that the estate which was earlier held by Raja Chandra Sen had been relinquished in favour of the petitioner Raj Gajendra Singh in July 1955 and he had become the sole owner/khatedar and, therefore, the SDO and the RAA had committed irregularity in accepting Kishan Singh, Chanchal Singh and Laxman Singh the brothers of petitioner No.1 as joint Khatedars of the land in dispute and the consequent mutations entered into by the Gram Panchayat Kunadi in favour of four brothers after the death of Raja Chandra Sen is also null and void. It was also the contention that the SDO, Kota had not enquired into the question of transfer of land in the revenue villages of Sarola and Dabar to the wife of the petitioner Ridhi Sidhi Kanwarji and his three brothers effected on 30.3.1959. It was also the contention that as a matter of fact the partition as effected mutually on 8.1.1965 had been wrongly not recognised in view of the decree passed on 4.12.1970. It was the case of the respondents that Jagir itself was resumed on 23.8.1954 and on resumption of Jagir, Jagirdar Raja Chandra Sen became khatedar of the land. The characteristics of `impartible estate' and rule of primogeniture were lost after the resumption of Jagir and as such Raja Chandra Sen could not have transferred the entire land to Raj Gajendra Singh in July 1955 as it had become ancestral property on abolition of Jagir. It was the further contention that even the release deed executed by Raja Chandra Sen has not been acted upon which is a clear proof from number of mutations in favour of respondents entered into by the Panchayat in December 1964. It was held by the Board of Revenue that after resumption/abolition of Jagir, Raja Chandra Sen had become an ordinary citizen to be governed by the law of land prevalent at that time in which rule of primogeniture of `impartible estate' were neither applicable nor it had any place and thus on the death of Raja Chandra Sen on 28.12.1964, his four sons inherited the land in dispute as co-tenants and the Gram Panchayat committed no illegality in attesting the mutation accordingly. The so called partition by the family in a suit was a collusive partition decree after 30.12.1969 and it was not a valid transfer to be considered as per ceiling law. It was also observed by the Board of Revenue that the petitioner himself had shown five members of the family. The share of the two girls who are married could not be covered u/Sec. 30-DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act and the share of the petitioner Ridhi Sidhi Kumari wife of Raj Gajendra Singh was clubbed with the husband, therefore, the petitioner Raj Gajendra Singh had been rightly allowed 30 standard acres to be retained by him. The orders passed by the RAA and SDO were confirmed.
(3.) WITH the above facts, the petitioners had challenged the impugned orders. A pedigree table right from Raj Bijai Singh has been reproduced in the writ petition, however, this pedigree table after the resumption of Jagir has no relevancy. However, it is admitted that Raja Chandra Sen was the eldest son of Bijay Singh who was ex-jagirdar of Kunadi who had succeeded Raj Bijai Singh, Raj Gajendra Singh was the eldest son of Raja Chandra Sen. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8. It is denied that the rule of primaginature is applicable or was applicable after the death of Raj Chandra Sen and after the Jagir having been resumed in August 1954, the property of Chandra Sen was to be distributed on his death amongst his all the coparceners. ;