- (1.) This writ petition has been originally filed by petitioner-Latoor and five others inter alia with the prayer that the order dated 10.5.1989 passed by Board of Revenue as well as order dated 25.3.1985 passed by the Additional Collector in ceiling proceedings may be quashed and set aside and it be declared that petitioners did not have any land in excess of the ceiling limit and the ceiling proceedings drawn against them be dropped and respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners on the land in dispute and they be further directed not to handover the land in question to any other person. It was further prayed that the respondents be restrained from taking any action pursuant to the 'dakhalnama' dated 26.8.1991 and not to acquire or take possession of any land in pursuance thereof. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner nos.1 to 4 have expired and their L.Rs. are now representing their interest.
(2.) The facts of the case are that original petitioners' father late Shri Dhanna Lal was khatedar of agricultural land measuring 237 bighas situated in village Sonkhanda, Tehsil Mangrol. According to the petitioners, this land was ancestral land and earlier to him, the khatedari was in the name of his father Laxman. Dhanna Lal had six sons i.e. the original petitioners. Proceedings for determination of the ceiling area under Chapter-III-B of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (in short-'the Act') were initiated against Dhanna Lal and an order dated 6.9.1975 was passed by the Assistant Collector, Baran by which it was held that there was no land in excess of the ceiling limit. However, the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 15 of the Act, reopened the ceiling proceedings by order dated 18.11.1980 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector, Baran to decide the same afresh. The Assistant Collector by its order dated 29.8.1983 relying upon the declaration submitted by Dhanna Lal on 3.2.1966 held that there were nine members in the family of Dhanna Lal, namely; Dhanna Lal himself, his wife Badri Bai, six sons i.e. original petitioners and a grand daughter Kanchan Bai. He held that village Sonkhanda was a non-command area and the total land was calculated at 67.32 standard acres. He also held that Dhanna Lal had included in his family, his second wife Jagannathi Bai and had also included his daughter-in-laws but it was held that they were not accepted as members of his family. The total number of family members was determined as 9 and Dhanna Lal and his family members were held to retain 50 standard acres of land, out of 67.32 standard acres and thus 17.32 standard acres of land was found in excess of the ceiling limit. Petitioners thereafter filed appeal before the Board of Revenue thereagainst. The Board of Revenue vide its judgement dated 28.9.1984 partly accepted the appeal and held that the Assistant Collector was in error in determining the number of family members as nine and held that the Assistant Collector should have determined the family members as twelve. The matter was remanded to the Additional Collector to re-determine the excess land treating the number of family members as twelve. The Additional Collector after remand again decided the matter on 25.3.1985 and held that there being 67.32 standard acres of land and petitioners being entitled to 60 standard acres, only, 7.32 standard acres was in excess of the ceiling limit. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners again filed appeal before the Board of Revenue, which has dismissed the appeal by impugned order. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the land in the hands of Dhanna Lal and through him, now the petitioners and their successors. Prior to Dhanna Ram, the land was recorded in the khata of his father Laxman. Petitioners are illiterate agriculturists. Even if are they not able to submit the documents, appropriate enquiry ought to have been made by the Additional Collector to find out as to on what basis Dhanna Lal was allotted the land. Copy of the mutation record was produced to show that the land was mutated by succession. Dhanna Lal had expired in the year 1974. His three sons have become major on 31.12.1968 and each of them was entitled to 60 bighas of land. If that was accepted, no land would be held in excess because each three major son would have the separate shares. It is argued that the respondents had earlier prepared a 'dakhalnama' on 26.4.1990 by which they alleged that they had taken 7.32 standard acres of barani land in possession equivalent to 14 bighas 17 biswas. Copy of which is placed on record at Annexure-10. Even then there was another 'dakhalnama' got prepared on 26.8.1991, by which the respondents sought to acquire another 4.08 standard acres of land even though the total land in excess was declared to be only 7.32 standard acres. The respondent could not have acquired this additional land of 4.08 over and above the land measuring 7.32 standard acres, which was already taken possession of by 'dakhalnama' dated 26.4.1990. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that even though new 'dakhalnama' was prepared but possession was not actually taken and when respondents attempted to make such effort, petitioners approached this Court. This Court vide order dated 16.7.1999 directed the parties to maintain status quo.;