Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.1985 passed by Additional Collector (Ceiling), Nagaur ('Addl. Collector') and judgment dated 03.07.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby while the Addl. Collector on reopening of ceiling proceedings, found the petitioner to be in possession of 18.16 standard acre land in excess of the ceiling area and the Board while upholding the finding of the Addl. Collector came to the conclusion that the petitioner was holding 8.16 standard acre land in excess of ceiling area.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus - under the provisions of Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') proceedings were initiated against Bhera Ram; statement was filed by him and proceedings were dropped by order dated 30.09.1972; whereafter, the proceedings were reopened under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1971 ('Act of 1971') by the order of the State Government dated 07.06.1980. After the proceedings were held before the Addl. Collector, the Addl. Collector by its order dated 17.10.1985 came to the conclusion that the assessee failed to produce evidence to show that the purchasers were major and were apparently related to the assessee and in view thereof, the Addl. Collector did not recognize the transfer dated 27.09.1965 of land admeasuring 364 Bigha 3 Biswa, which is equal to 30.16 standard acre and after adding the same to the existing land of Bhera Ram, found him in possession of 18.16 standard acre land in excess of the ceiling area. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board, the Board after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the requirement of maturity under Section 30 -DD of the Act means majority and as from the material available on record, it was found that out of three purchasers only Chatra Ram was major, and Kana Ram and Uda Ram were both minor, the transfer only to the extent of 10 standard acre could be recognized and, consequently, found the petitioner in possession of 8.16 standard acre land in excess of the ceiling area and partly allowed the appeal.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities below committed error in applying the provisions of Section 30 -DD of the Act; the provision of maturity as indicated in Section 30 -DD(i) of the Act does not apply to a case of agriculturist and the same applies only in case of transfer in favour of son or brother of the assessee and, therefore, both the authorities fell in error in deciding the issue against the petitioner merely based on its interpretation regarding maturity being equal to majority and coming to the conclusion that Kana Ram and Uda Ram were minor. It is further submitted that the proceedings before the Addl. Collector pursuant to the reopening were also not held in accordance with the requirements of law and the burden could not have been cast on the petitioners to prove the exception under Section 30 -DD of the Act and, therefore, also order passed by both the authorities cannot be sustained.;