SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, who are ten in number and the petitioners No. 1/1 and 1/2 are the LRs. of original petitioner No. 1 Shankarlal, against the respondents on 16.1.1987 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 5.12.1986 (Ex. 3) passed by the Board of Revenue. Ajmer in the review petition be quashed and all other orders passed by the Revenue Authorities prior to that order Ex. 3 be also quashed.
(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances : One Shambhu Singh (hereinafter referred to as deceased) had granted Pattas of certain agricultural lands on the dates mentioned in Schedule A, which is a part of this writ petition, to the petitioners as well as forefathers of the petitioners, who had subsequently executed sale deeds in favour of the petitioners in respect of various Khasras of land as mentioned in Schedule -A and the land in dispute was mutated in favour of the petitioners on the date mentioned in Schedule -A much before 1.4.1966. During the ceiling proceedings, which were initated against the deceased Shambhu Singh, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhilwara passed an order on 31.7.1971 (Ex. 1) by which he found 116 standard acres of land, out of 147 standard acres of land, in excess of the ceiling limit to be acquired from the deceased Shambhu Singh and he further came to the conclusion that the said excess lahd should vest in the State. However, the case of the petitioners is that before passing the order Ex. 1 dated 31.7.1971, no notice as required under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Government Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1963') was given to the petitioners, who were recorded as tenants in the Revenue Record. According to the petitioners, it was obligatory on the part of the Sub -Divisional Officer to issue notice to the petitioners, before passing the order Ex. 1 dated 31.7.1971, as they were tenants of that land and registered owners. It may be stated here that the present petitioners are those persons to whom the deceased Shambhu Singh sold land through registered sale deeds, the details of which are mentioned in Schedule -A appended to the writ petition and all the transactions took place before 1.12.1969. Against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer dated 31.7.1971 (Ex. 1), the deceased Shambhu Singh preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, but the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide order dated 29.7.1975. However, the Sub -Divisional Officer was directed to afford an opportunity of option to deceased Shambhu Singh. It was submitted by the petitioners that thereafter, deceased Shambhu Singh gave his option and in fact in his option he surrendered the lahd in dispute which had been sold to the petitioners and was in possession of the petitioners. It was further submitted by the petitioners that the Sub -Divisional Officer called a report of the Tehsildar also and the Tehsildar in his report dated 19.1.1976 stated that the land in dispute was in possession of the tenants i.e. petitioners in whose favour the land in dispute had been mutated in the year 1963 -64. Thus, it was submitted by the petitioners that on the appointed date i.e. 1.4.1966, the land in dispute did not stand in the name of the deceased Shambhu Singh and therefore, it could not be resumed. However, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhilwara ignoring the report of the Tehsildar and also the fact that the land in dispute had been transferred in the name of the petitioners and other Khatedars, passed an order on 9.3.1976 by which he held that the land including the land in dispute had vested in the State Government. The petitioners and other persons who were aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.1976 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhilwara, preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and the same was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur vide order dated 22.6.1976. Against the said order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the same was rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.7.1979 (Ex. 3). Thereafter,' the petitioners filed a review petition against the order dated 6.7.1979 (Ex. 2) and they also filed a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 31.7.1971 (Ex. 1) passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bhilwara and both review petition as well as revision were dismissed by the Board of Revenue through common judgment dated 5.12.1986 (Ex. 3). It may be stated here that in review petition before the Board of Revenue, it was submitted by the petitioners that since during the ceiling proceedings no notice was given to them, therefore, the whole proceedings stood vitiated, but that plea was not found favourable by the Board of Revenue and the same was rejected. Aggrieved from the order dated 5.12.1986 (Ex. 3) passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4 on 9.2.1993 in which it was submitted that deceased Shambhu Singh had no right to grant Pattas of the agricultural land to the petitioners and some other persons and he had not proved before the Sub -Divisional Officer that he had transferred the land and that transfers satisfied the conditions laid down in Sec. 30 -DD of Chapter -IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Old Ceiling Law). Furthermore, the petitioners had approached the Board of Revenue and agitated the matter there, but their case was not found favourable by the Board of Revenue. The impugned order Ex. 3 dated 5.12.1986 passed by the Board of Revenue does not suffer from any basic infirmities or illegalities and thus, no interference is called for with the same. Hence, this petition be dismissed. In this petition, mainly the following two submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners - - (1) That as per Rule 14 of the Rules of 1963, a notice to the transferee was also required to be given and since the Sub -Divisional Officer did not issue any notice to the petitioners, therefore, whole proceedings of ceiling stood vitiated. (2) That since the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute long back as they are owners of land in dispute through registered sale deeds and more than 30 years have passed, therefore, they should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute and for that, the petitioners sought protection from Article 300A of the Constitution of India and also sought support from the two decisipns of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Lal v. Board of Revenue and Ors., : AIR1994SC1128 , and Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : [1994]3SCR1013 , and also from unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1229/1980 Smt. Gatudi v. The Board of Revenue and Ors., decided on 17.7.1995.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. Point No. 1;