Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, J. - (1.) Appellants have filed these appeals, against the common order dt. 4.3.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1535 to 1540 of 1987. In all the above appeals, common questions of facts and law are involved. Hence, they are being decided by a common order. For convenience, the facts in this judgment are being taken from Special Appeal Writ No. 522/1997, Pema & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In this case, Fateh Singh son of Prithvi Singh, resident of Kotari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali was holding agricultural land measuring 7751/3 bighas Chahl as well as Baranl. Out of this land, he had transferred some land in favour of his family members and some land by way of different registered sale -deeds to appellants and other persons. Fateh Singh filed returns, as required under the Ceiling Law. Legality of the transfer made by Fateh Singh was examined by SDO, Bali, Revenue Appellate Authority and Revisional Court up to the final stage, and transfers made by Fateh Sing were ignored and not recognized and ultimately, it was held that Fateh Singh was entitled to hold only 30 standard acres of land. The appellants submitted, that Fateh Singh originally transferred the land on 14.6.1968 by way of registered sale -deeds to number of transferees and name of the said transferees were effected in the revenue record since the date of transfer, and the said transferees, who were agriculturists and domiciled in Rajasthan, remained in possession of the land. The appellants purchased the land from the said transferees by registered sale -deeds and after that, the appellants remained in possession of the land and their names were entered in the revenue record. Fateh Singh furnished returns of agricultural land in excess of the ceiling area, which was already by him and had also submitted particulars of additional land on 2.2.1970 mentioning therein names of transferees as well as annexed copies of the sale -deeds. The aforesaid transferees were ignored by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 24.4.1976, holding therein, that the transfers, so made in favour of the family members were not valid. Some of the transferees, who had been left with some land after selling the land to the appellants, filed objections before SDO, Bail, who vide order dt. 6.1.1977, exempted the agricultural land from the purview of the ceiling area of Fateh Singh as mentioned in the order of SDO Annexure -3. Fateh Singh challenged this order before the Revenue Appellant Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 15.3.1980, dismissed the appeal. Fateh Sing preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure -4 dt. 31.3.1987. It was held by the Board of Revenue that under Sec. 30 -E(II) of the Land Ceiling Act, the land which is unencumbered should be taken first and rest of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was not interfered with. In compliance of the order of the Revenue Appellant Authority, vide order dt. 29.4.1987, SDO, Bali passed an order Annexure -5 for taking possession of the land so involved. Appellants being aggrieved by the order Annexure -5, when they had been threatened to be dispossessed, approached this Court for quashing of the impugned orders dt. 29.4.1987, 6.1.1977 and 31.3.1987 after serving notice for demand of justice Annexure -6 on the ground that are subsequent transferees of the land and their names having been recorded in the revenue record but they were not impleaded as party before passing of any order. Appellants also alleged that some of the Khasra numbers, which have been transferred by some sale -deeds have been exempted from the purview of ceiling area, though appellants Khasra numbers have been treated to be in the purview of ceiling area and thus, without any reasonable basis the appellants have been treated differently and unequivocally and have been denied equality of law and equal protection of flaw guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They further alleged that they have never been informed by Fateh Singh or by their sellers that the land in question is in ceiling affected area. It was also alleged that some land transferred by Fateh Singh subsequent to 14.6.1968 but before 1.12.1969 had been exempted. It was further alleged that transfers made before 1.12.1969 were recognized by way of amendment after the introduction of amended Sec. 30 -DD in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was further alleged that under the provisions of Sec. 30 -E(II), the land, which is unencumbered, is to be taken in preference to the encumbered land. It was further alleged that the appellants are bonafide agriculturists as well as landless parsons at the time of transfer in their favour. Hence, the appellants' land is exempted from the purview of ceiling area and they are being deprived of their right to properly without any authority of law, which contravenes the mandate of Article 300 -A of the Constitution of India. Appellants prayed that respondents may be directed not to acquire/dispossess the appellants from the disputed land and order dt. 29.4.1987 may be quashed and in case appellants have been dispossessed from the disputed agricultural land, their possession may be restored, as if they were never dispossessed.
(2.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply and alleged that appellants being subsequent transferees from the transferees, have no locus stand to file writ petition and they are not entitled to an right of hearing. It was further alleged that appellants were not at all necessary parties at any given point of time in any of the impugned orders. Fateh Singh's surplus land had already been declared finally and appellants have purchased some land from transferees. To defeat the provisions of law itself, appellants cannot challenge the declaration made by Fateh Singh. It was further alleged that orders dt. 6.1.1977, 31.3.1987 and 29.4.1987 Annexure -P/3, P/4 and P/5 respectively had already become final between the parties and had not been challenged by any party. Hence, transfers made by Fateh Singh were not recognized and ignored vide aforesaid orders, and possession of the appellants is that of trespassers and such possession cannot be considered to be possession with an cumbrance on the land. It was further alleged, that Fateh Singh was allowed to retain only 30 standard acres of land within ceiling limit and rest of his entire land was declared to be surplus, so State Government is entitled to take its possession. It was further alleged, that exempted land constitutes only the land which the original holder is entitled to hold and retain under the ceiling law and thus denied any discrimination. It was denied that appellants are bonafide agriculturists and landless persons and thus, the order passed by the SDO in pursuance to the order passed by Board of Revenue is in accordance with law, and prayed that petitions be dismissed with costs.
(3.) After hearing both parties, learned Single Judge held, that appellants had no locus standi to challenge any of the orders, passed by the Revenue Authorities, and further held, that appellants had no right of being heard before Revenue Authorities. It was further held, that appellants transferees were not domiciles of Rajasthan at the time of transfer. It was further held, that declaration of surplus land of Fateh Singh has attained finality and notice Annexure -P/6 to handover the possession to the State was a consequential corollary and further found that writs are without merit and thus the writ petitions were dismissed.;