B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) The petitioners, by this writ petition, have challenged the order Annexure 1, passed by the Ceiling Authority, i.e., the Additional Collector (Adm.), Sri Ganganagar, as well as the order Annexure 2, dated 4-8-89, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, by which 67.16 Bighas of land, held by the petitioner No. 1 Jangir Singh, was declared as surplus and was ordered to be acquired and to be vested in the State Government.
(2.) Petitioner No. 1 Jangir Singh filed a Return under the Old Ceiling Law as well as under the New Ceiling Law. The Ceiling Authority, after taking into consideration the Return filed by Jangir Singh and other relevant material produced before it, came to the conclusion that Jangir singh had no land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him either under the Old or the New Ceiling Laws and, therefore, dropped the proceedings against petitioner No. 1 Jangir Singh. The ceiling case of Jangir Singh was considered by the State Government under Section 15 of the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings) Act, 1973, under the Old Ceiling laws as well as under the New Ceiling law and the State Government, after looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, was satisfied that the ceiling area in relation to the petitioner No. 1 Jangir Singh was determined in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and, therefore, the State Government directed the Additional Collector (Adm.), Sri Ganganagar, to re-open and decide the case of the petitioner Jangir Singh and determine the ceiling area and surplus area afresh, in accordance with law. The Additional Collector (Adm.), Sri Ganganagar, thereafter, by its order dated 17-8-84, re-determined the ceiling case of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that though the petitioner has no excess land available to him under the New Ceiling Law but under the Old Ceiling Law he was holding 139.04 Bighas of land, which includes 25 Bighas of land which belongs to his mother and he is entitled to retain only 46-08 Bighas of land looking to five members in his family and, therefore, he declared 92.16 Bighas of land as-'surplus land. Dissatisfied with the order dated 17-8-84, passed by the Additional Collector (Adm.), Sri Ganganagar, Petitioner Jangir Singh preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer. The appeal, filed by the petitioner-appellant was partly allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue, by its Judgment dated 4-8-89. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, while partly allowing the appeal, held that 25 Bighas of land, entered in the name of the mother of Jangir singh, was wrongly clubbed with the land held by the petitioner Jangir Singh, but dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner-appellant, on other grounds and declared that petitioner Jangir Singh is entitled to have only 46.08 Bighas of land and declared the remaining 67.16 Bighas of land as surplus land. It is against this order Annexure 2 dated 4-8-89, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question, held by Jangir Singh (petitioner No. 1 was his ancestral land and the petitioner No. 2 Harendra Singh and petitioner No. 3 Bhupendra Singh have their shares as coparcener's, since their birth. A suit was filed by the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 for partition of this land, which was decreed in their favour and the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were not dependants on petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, the shares of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in the ancestral land have wrongly been clubbed with the land held by Jangir Singh. According to him, even a formal partition took place in the year 1989, and 49.18 Bighas of land came to the share of Jangir Singh and his wife while 63.2 Bighas of land came to the share of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, and since the date of partition, they were holding the land in their own name and they were not the dependants of the petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, they cannot be treated as the family members of the petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of Ceiling Law as they were not dependent upon the petitioner No. 1. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dependency of the children on the parents or grand-parents makes them the members of the family and the minority itself is no ground to make them the members of the family of their parents and their share of the ancestral land cannot be clubbed in the land of the petitioner No. 1. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question of dependency has not been considered by the Authorities in the right perspective and only a finding has been given regarding the dependency looking into the age of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. The Ceiling Authorities were required to consider and decide the question of dependency independently and in the absence of the determination of the question of dependency and a specific finding on it, the order, passed by the Authority, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance over: Jagannath Bhojraj v. The Sub-Divisional Officer, 1985 (1) WLN 21; Ram Pratap v. The State of Rajasthan, 1989 RRD 127; Smt. Antar Kanwar v. The Board of Revenue, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2852 of 1989, decided on 7-9-93. The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, has supported the orders Annexure 1 and Annexure 2, passed by the Ceiling Authority and the Member. Board of Revenue, respectively. It has, also, been contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the age of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, on the relevant date, was 8 and 4 years, respectively, and they have not acquired the age of expressing their discretion and for all purposes they were dependants on their parents and even in the declaration, petitioner No. 1 Jangir Singh had shown the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as the members of his family and, therefore, it is not only on account of their minority that the case of the petitioners have been considered by the Ceiling Authorities but the question of dependency has, also, been considered and a specific finding has been given by the Ceiling Authorities while considering the case of the petitioners and, therefore, no interference is required.;