- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, Gurumukh Singh S/o Prem Singh, has filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the order of learned Board of Revenue Annex.11 dated 16.11.1999 dismissing the appeal under Section 23 (2A) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling of Agricultural Land Act, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1973'), which was filed against the order of District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, dated 03.05.1995 (Annex.9) in Case No.4/1990 - State Vs. Prem Singh. It may be stated here that earlier ceiling proceedings against the father of the petitioner, Prem Singh, were dropped by the order dated 28.08.1975, however, these proceedings, were reopened under the Act of 1973 under Section 15 (1) of the said Act vide order dated 17.07.1982 of the learned Deputy Secretary, Ceiling Department, copy of such order dated 17.07.1982 is placed on record as Annex.8. Pursuant to such reopening, the District Collector, passed a fresh order on 03.05.1995 (Annex.9), holding that there was surplus land of 13.01 Bighas of land and, therefore, after dividing said land between the dependents of late Sh. Prem Singh, the learned Addl. District Collector, determined the surplus land measuring 13.01 Bighas vide its order dated 03.05.1995. The relevant portion of the said order dated 03.05.1995 is quoted hereunder for ready reference: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the present petitioner, Gurumukh Singh, approached the learned Board of Revenue by way of appeal under Section 23 (2A) of the Act of 1973, which came to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 16.11.1999 with the following observations: - "3. Consequently State preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue against tis judgment of Addl. Collector which was accepted by the Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 19.4.90 and it was observed that exercise u/s 4 proviso 2 be made and then case be decided in accordance with the provisions of aforesaid section. This time Addl. Collector vide its impugned judgment holding that 13.1 Bigha is excess land with the assessee, hence the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that decree given by the A.C.M., Ganganagar dated 12.2.73 in the case of Smt. Punjab Kaur Vs. Harnam Kaur u/s 53 should be given recognition. He submits that land held by Prem Singh by way of allotment as claim for the Pakistan land should be treated as ancestral property. 6. On the contrary Govt. Advocate argued that there is no proof about the ancestral property nor allotted can be deemed to be ancestral property. More so decree passed by A.C.M. on 12.2.73 cannot be recognised. 7. After thoughtful examination of the submission made by the rival parties I am of the view that since there is no legal ground to accept allotted land father of the present appellant as ancestral land nor it can be presumed as such because allotment was made in the new case, therefore, plea of ancestral property can not be accepted. The decree passed by A.C.M. on 12.2.73 between Punjab Kaur and Harnam Kaur can not be given recognition because Punjab Kaur was widow of Pritam Singh, Harnam Kaur was widow of Pritam Singh. More so it is collusive decree and was made long after the appointed date under the Old Ceiling Law Act that is 1.4.66. 8. Under these circumstances I do not think any substance in this appeal and the present appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 3.5.95, holding that assessee has 13.01 standard acre as excess land is maintained. ;