MITAL, C.J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3217/93 Bhera Ram Vs. Board of Revenue, No. 3219/93 Laxman Singh Vs. Board or Revenue and No.3220/93 Shesha Ram Vs. Board of Revenue. We are also noticing that the facts of D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3217/93 and facts of other cases are identical.
(2.) THE petitioner is a subsequent transfers of the land from respondents no. 3 to 5 who were original land holders. THE appointed date for declaration of surplus area is 1.11.973 whereas subsequent transfer was made on 11.12.1979. The proceedings were initiated against the original land owners respondents no. 3. to 5 for declaration of surplus area and under law choice is to be given to land owner to give Khasara number which he would retain as permissible area. Since the another holding on the appointed day exceeded permissible area although the poroceedings for declaration of surplus area started in the year 1973 but culminated by order dated 15.04.1989 vide Ex.4. During this period, after the total area was determined by the State in the hands of respondents no. 3 to 5 on 1.1.1973 the respondents no. 3 to 5 were given option to give numbers of the land which they liked to retain as permissible area. The land owner gave his option after the sale and in option he retained the land which was left with him and with the result that the land sold by him to the writ petitioner was to be declared surplus and the State declared the land of the subsequent vendee as surplus. The subsequent vendee first filed an appeal before the Collector and failed, and thereafter he approached the Board of Revenue by way of appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.1993 (Anxnex.8 ). Before the Board of Revenue, the argument was raised that in pursuant to Section 16(4) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 for the preposition that even if the sale is subsequent to 1.1.1973 the transferer has to surrender out of the land remaining with him. After the transfer, if still some balance is left to be declared surplus then it can be made good from the transferee. The Board of Revenue was of the view that the subsequent transferee cannot take shelter under Sec. 16(4) of the Act as first transferee had failed to raise grievance in this behalf and the present appeal before them was by a subsequent transferee. Feeling aggrieved, the subsequent transferee has come to this court and this petition. A bare reading of Section 16(4) referred to above, shows that it was the duly of the transferer to surrender land out of the remaining land left with him after the sale and he could not declare the sole land as surplus by retaining the balance land.
(3.) WE are informed that land owner of 322 Bighas and 17 biswas of land, made sale of 27 Bighas to the petitioner before us in this writ petition but we are informed that he made sales on area exceeding 150 bighas and after all sales are excluded even then the surplus land could be declared from the land out of the remaining land with him. Thus, the facts need not to be gone into by us at this stage. All we have to consider is whether a subsequent transferee in regard to sale after the ceiling date is also entiled to have benefit of Section 16(4) of the Act or not. We are of the opinion that he is clearly entitled to all benfits of Section 16(4) of the Act which reads as under : - "16(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 18 or in any other provision of this Act where any transfer of land is not recognised or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to the transferor under sub-section (1) of section 6, surrender of surplus land vesting in the State Government shall be made by transferor out of the land remaining with him after the transfer and the balance of surplus land remaining, if any shall be recovered from the transferee by his ejectment. In case surplus land or any portion of it is recovered from the transferee, the price paid by him for such land or portion there of shall be deducted from the amount of acquisition payable to the transferor and shall be paid to the transferee to an extent not exceeding such amount of acquisition." A reading of the aforesaid provision clearly shows that even if the sale is subsequent to 1.1.1973 a transferor has first to declare surplus land out of his Blance land and then ceiling proceedings can be taken against the transferee for making good for surplus area. Our view is supported by D.B.Judgment of this Court rendered in Badrilal Vs. Stale of Rajasthan (1 ). Aeeordingly, we quash the impugned orders and remand the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali to re-determine the land which is to be declared surplus, and in doing so he will first take khasara numbers which are left with the transferers and if some more area is to be declared surplus, then the khasara number of the land found to be transferred will be taken into consideration in accordance with law and keeping in view of the observations made by us and provisions of Section 16(4) of the Act. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the S.D.O. Pali on 24lh November,1994, who will decide the case expeditiously according to law. ;