Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ of certiorari in which petitioners have assailed the validity of orders dt. 24.12.1996 and 21.01.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short ''the Board ''), order dt. 21.12.1976 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (for short ''the Authority '') and order dt. 24.07.1976 passed by the S.D.O. (ceiling), Kota.
(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case is that one Jagannath, who was father of Mangi Lal and husband of Smt. Dhooli Bai died in Samvat 1988 (year 1931). A large chunk of agricultural land owned by him, was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Dhooli Bai and son Shri Mangi Lal. Out of the lands entered in the name of Mangi Lal, 338 bighas and 12 bishwas land was mutated in the name of his sons Narendra Kumar and Surendra Kumar and 323 bighas and 15 bishwas land was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Komal Devi on 30.03.1959. The said mutation was made prior to 01.04.1966 which is the prescribed date under the old ceiling law for commencement of the ceiling clause. The case of the petitioners is that this land having been ancestral, they inherited it from Jagannath. When notices under R.14 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1963, were served upon them, separate replies thereto were filed by Shri Mangi Lal, Surendra Kumar, Narender Kumar, Mahendra and Purshottam disclosing their separate Khatedaries maintaining therein that the land in their names was entered in separate Khatedari being ancestral and that Smt. Dhooli Bai expired on 30.08.1968. It was stated that the sons of Mangi Lal, even though minor, were not dependent on him. They were assessed independently under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act. Smt. Dhooli Bai -mother of Mangi Lal who was alive till much after the prescribed date i.e. on 01.04.1966 and had died on 30.08.1968, was also not dependent on him. An affidavit to this effect was submitted by Mangi Lal before the SDO. The SDO vide order dt. 24.07.1976 decided that the land measuring 438.07 standard acres was surplus. He allowed 5 members in the family and excluded land measuring 267.85 standard acres which had been utilised in construction of canal and part of which was transferred prior to 31.12.1969 and in respect of which separate mutations were opened in favour of transferees. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said order of the SDO before the Authority. The Authority by its order dt. 21.12.1976 allowed the appeal in part modifying the order passed by the SDO and recognised eight family members instead of only five members and consequently allowing 46 standard acres of land to be retained. Surplus land was thus reduced from 438.07 standard acres to 423.07 standard acres. The Authority entertained cross objections filed on behalf of the petitioners which were not filed within the period of limitation and without there being any authorisation from the competent authority in the Government. While allowing the cross objections the Authority directed that the question of exclusion of land measuring 267.85 standard acres part of which was said to have been transferred and some part of it was utilised in construction of canal, should be re -examined and with that direction the matter was remanded to the SDO. The petitioners filed revision petition before the Board against the order of the Authority which was dismissed by the Board vide its order dt. 24.12.1996 and thereafter the review petition was also dismissed by the Board on 21.01.1997. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard Shri N.K. Maloo, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri G.S. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent - State.;