P.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner Bheru Lal, seeks to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction for quashing the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 15th October, 1976. (Sic)
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the son of deceased Lakha who had 199 bighas 12 biswas of agricultural land entered in his Khata in the revenue records of village Laban, Tehsil Keshorai-patan district Bundi. It is stated that the land is an ancestral property inherited by Lakha. It is also stated that out of the said land, 38 bighas was gifted to Gopali Bai. It is further stated that the proceedings for the determination of ceiling area in relation to Lakha, father of the petitioner, under Sec. 30 (C) were commenced and a report was submitted by the Tehsildar as per rules. According to the report, the following members were entered in the family of Lakha :- 1. Lakha himself 2. Bheru Lal (petitioner) son of Lakha Wife of Bherulal Daughter of Bheru Lal Two sons of Bheru Lal 3. On the basis of the report the Assistant Collector, on 16th June, 1972, determined the ceiling area and held that deceased Lakha was entitled to 35, standard acres of land and after leaving 69 bighas, the land measuring 119 bighas 5 biswas was declared surplus which was required to be surrendered by that petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, deceased Lakha filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. Lakha expired on 26th May 1972. Therefore, the petitioner as son of Lakha, Gopali Bai and Pana Bai as daughters were brought on record as legal representatives of Lakha. The appeal was decided by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 21st July, 1975, whereby the appeal was partly accepted and the case was remanded for recording evidence as to whether the land was irrigated or un-arrigated. On remand the Sub-divisional Officer Bundi recorded the evidence and held that the area was in Chambal Command and was irrigated by rotation and further held that the entire land was irrigated. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 10th October, 1975 an appeal was preferred to the Revenue Appellate Authority who dismissed the same by his judgment dated 3rd March, 1976. He upheld the judgment of the Sub-divisional Officer. Against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority a revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the revision petition was dismissed on 15th October, 1976. The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the said order of the Board of Revenue. 4. Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the order of the Board of Revenue of the following grounds:- 1. That petitioner Bheru Lal was the major son of the deceased, Lakha. and, as such, he was entitled to a separate unit. Thus, the total area to which deceased Lakha and the petitioner were entitled to hold 60 standard acres of land and, thus the order of the Board of Revenue and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Sub-divisional Officer are illegal. 2. That R. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Government Rules. 1963, which provides all lands in Chambal Command Area in one group is unjust discriminatory and unreasonable. The ceiling area is in relation to the land situated in command land in Chambal Project without any distinction whether any particular piece of land is irrigated or not. 3. That in the year 1973, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was made applicable, which repealed the old ceiling law. Consequently, the proceedings should have been taken under the New Ceiling Act. 5. Shri Pareek learned Addl. Government Advocate, submitted that there is no merit in the contentions raised by Shri Sharma inasmuch as objection Mo. 1. referred to above, was not taken before the Revenue Board by the petitioner. In the revision before the Board of Revenue no dispute was raised that the entire holding of the petitioner did not receive water every year or it was only a part of the holding which was being irrigated in turn and, therefore, the Sub-divisional Officer and the Revenue Appellate Authority should have treated only such land which had actually been irrigated as command land. Regarding the third objection, Shri Pareek, learned Addl. Government Advocate, submitted that the objection is untenable as the question raised has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in Banshidhar vs. State (1).
(3.) WE have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the objection No. 1 raised by Shri Sharma, it is evident from the record that this objection was not raised by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. Ajmer. Therefore, we cannot allow the petitioner to make submissions in this regard. As this ground was not raised before the Board of Revenue it will be deemed that the petitioner has waived this objection. As regards objection No. 2 raised by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Board of Revenue and the revenue authorities is reasonable. We do not find any ground for declaring Rule 19 as ultra-vires. The view taken by the revenue authorities in this regard is reasonable and we do not want to interfere with it. ;