- (1.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.6.96 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 19.5.95 passed by the Additional Collector, Pali u/Sec. 23(2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (in short "the Act of 1973" hereinafter), has been partly allowed. However, the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Collector, Pali refusing to recognise the transfer of the land made by the petitioner prior to 1.1.1973 and acquiring the excess land and measuring 92 bighas 1 biswa, stands confirmed by the order impugned. Besides the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has also challenged order dated 21.11.96 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the review petition preferred by the petitioner for review of the order dated 20.6.96 has been rejected.
(2.) The relevant facts in nutshell are that the ceiling proceedings against the petitioner under the Act of 1973 were initiated and dropped by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bali vide order dated 23.9.75 holding that he did not possess any surplus land. THEreafter the ceiling proceedings were reopened by the State Government u/S. 15(1) of the Act of 1973 and the matter was referred to the Additional Collector, Pali for decision afresh. The Additional Collector, Pali on the basis of the evidence on record found that the 227 bighas land was transferred by the petitioner to different person on the same day for a consideration of Rs. 4,500/- which is just meager and therefore, the transfers made cannot be considered as bona fide. Accordingly, while refusing to recognise the transfers, the Additional Collector directed to acquire the excess land determined as 92 bighas and 1 biswa. On appeal by the petitioner, the Board of Revenue opined that the burden to prove that the transfers are bona fide is upon the transferor and the petitioner has not been able to establish that the transfer effected prior to 1.1.1973 are bona fide. The learned Board opined that merely because the transfers have been made by registered sale deed, the same cannot be treated to be bona fide. The learned Board held that the petitioner has transferred 227 bighas land for a consideration of Rs. 4500/- only, which cannot be said to be bona fide. That apart, the learned Board observed that the entire land has been transferred by the petitioner on the same day and has not retained even one bigha land for himself which also indicate that the transfers are not bona fide. Accordingly, the order passed by the Additional Collector has been confirmed by the Board, however, the petitioner has been granted one month time to give his option regarding the land beyond the ceiling limit to be acquired. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the courts below have seriously erred in holding that the transfers effect by the petitioner prior to 1.1.1973 are not bona fide inasmuch as, the consideration of Rs. 4500/- for sale of 227 bighas of land is highly inadequate. The learned counsel submitted that in absence of any inquiry in respect of prevalent market price at the relevant time in the area, the assumption of inadequacy of the price is not sustainable in eye of law. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in "Inder Kanwar vs. State of Rajasthan",2006 2 CDR 1859. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that while passing the order impugned, the Board of Revenue has not taken into consideration that the evidence led by the petitioner to establish that the transfers are bona fide have not been considered by the original authority objectively. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner got examined the witnesses Kesa, Kalu, Gurnna, Dhana, Bhima and Sohan Singh, Patwari however, their statements have been discarded by the Additional Collector so also the Board of Revenue without consideration. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the finding arrived at by the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Pali, affirmed by the Board of Revenue is ex facie perverse and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Counsel submitted that the burden to prove that the transfers made prior to 1.1.1973 are bona fide is upon the transferor and he is under an obligation to prove them to be bona fide by producing cogent evidence. The learned counsel submitted that merely on the basis of the registered sale deed produced by the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that the transfers are bona fide. The learned counsel submitted that the findings arrived at by the Courts below after appreciation of evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. As per the provisions of 6 of the Act of 1973, the transfer of land by way of sale, gift, exchange etc. made on or after 26th September, 1970 is deemed to have been made in order to defeat the provisions of the Act of 1973 and such transfers shall not be recognised or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to a person, However, if the transfers are made before 1.1.1973 and the same are found to be bona fide, the burden whereof is on the transferor are recognisable. Therefore, there is no quarrel on the preposition that if the transferor fails to prove the transactions as bona fide by producing the cogent evidence, the land covered by such transactions shall be taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to a person. It is to be noticed that in the instant case, the transfers were effected by the petitioner by registered sale deeds in favour of Bhim Raj, Kalu and Dhana and Shri Gamna. Admittedly, the sale deeds were produced by the petitioner in the proceeding before the Additional Collector (Ceiling) and the transferees Kalu, Gamna, Dhana and Bhima were examined as witnesses. That apart, Sohan Singh, Patwari was also got examined as witness on behalf of the petitioner. However, a perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) goes to show that he found the transfers to be not bona fide solely on the ground that all the transfers were made on the same day and 227 bighas of land has been sold for consideration of Rs. 4500/- which is highly inadequate. However, while arrived at the finding as aforesaid, the statement of the witnesses have not simply been considered by the authority concerned.;