- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.04.2005 as passed in CWP No. 4004/2001 : State of Rajasthan Vs. Hazari Ram & Ors. whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court found no reason to interfere in the order dated 23.03.2001 as passed by the Board of Revenue in the appeal arising out of the ceiling proceedings in relation to the respondent-assessee (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives).
(2.) THE learned Single Judge, while taking a comprehensive view of the matter, proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with a short order that is reproduced in extenso as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 23.3.2001 by which the Board of Revenue partly allowed the appeal of the private respondents and held that the Additional Collector in its order dated 5.6.1998 wrongly included 8 bighas of land in the account of the assessee. This is a finding of fact recorded by the Board of Revenue and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to reassess the evidence on this issue. Apart from it, the case of the respondents/assessees is that said land of 8 bighas was included in the account of transferee and that was taken into consideration in the account of transferee while determining the land in his hands. I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition, having no force, is hereby dismissed. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant that in his order dated 05.06.1998, the learned Additional Collector (Administration), while dealing with the reopened matter under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, rightly found that the assessee held 11 bighas and 11 biswas of land in excess of the ceiling limit and there was no justification for the Board of Revenue to interfere; and that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the record of the case and ought to have interfered with the order as passed by the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the respondents has duly supported the order impugned. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. The assessee-respondent was sought to be proceeded in the agricultural land ceiling proceedings on the allegation of his holding in all 70 bighas and 7 biswas of land, the calculation whereof was made in the manner that 62 bighas of land was taken into account as held by him at Chak 33 PS and then, another 8 bighas and 7 biswas were added with reference to 25 bighas of barani land, as said to have been held by him at Chak Bhompura, that was equal to 8 bighas and 7 biswas of irrigated land. The learned Additional Collector further observed that as per the verification from the Tehsildar, 2 bighas and 16 biswas of land was recorded as gair- mumkin that was not to be included in the ceiling calculations and while deducting this 2 bighas and 16 biswas, held that the assessee was having 67 bighas and 11 biswas of land; and, with reference to 5 members in the family, held him entitled to 56 bighas of land and thereby, remaining 11 bighas and 11 biswas was taken as the excess land.
(3.) THE Board of Revenue has found the fact that the aforesaid unirrigated 25 bighas of land that was treated equivalent to 8 bighas and 7 biswas as irrigated land for the purpose of ceiling was in the name of Shri Raja Ram, the grand-son of the assessee; and this land was, in fact, assessed at the hands of the said Shri Raja Ram. THE Board of Revenue, inter alia, observed as under:- "6........ THE land measuring 25 bighas BARANI equivalent to 8 bighas irrigated land of village Bhumpura was and is recorded in the name of Raja Ram as per entries of Jamabandi Exhibit-2 and this land has already been included in individual ceiling case decided by the authorised officer on 16.5.75. THE judgment of the said officer is available in the file therefore, I hold that this land cannot be included while deciding the case of grand father of Raja Ram who was the assessee in the present case on the appointed date. The Board of Revenue, therefore, found that this Barani land was required to be excluded while assessing the holdings of the assessee and then, excess 3.4 bighas was not liable to be acquired being a small fragment. The learned Single Judge has taken a comprehensive view of the matter and found no case for interference in the order as passed by the Board of Revenue. ;