FAROOQ HASAN, J. - (1.) THE facts, simple enough as they are, have been complicated by the voluminous record built up by the petitioners. Shorn of all unnecessary detail, the relevant facts are these. The petitioners, (Ram Pratap, Kewal Chand, Padam Kumar and Mahaveer Prasad), claimed themselves as Khatedar tenants of the land situated in villages Gamach (308 Bighas 9 Biswas) and Bhawanipura (46 Bigbas 10 Biswas) on the ground that they had succeeded over the land inherited by Dhanna and Laxmi Narain on the death of one, Shri Onkar. According to the petitioners, on the death of Dhannalal, the parties partitioned co -parcenary joint family property and the mutation was attested before 1 -4 -1966 by giving effect also to the Jamabandi of S.Ys. 2020 to 2023. In ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioners for their lands, the order were passed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 which are being challenged through this writ petition praying therein for setting aside the orders dated 17 -11 -1976 (Aux. D) of the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2); dated 25 -8 -1977 (Anx. E) along with (Anx. B) dated 9 -6 -1975 of the Revenue Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3), and dated 29 -1 -1972 (Anx, A) of the Assistant Collector (Ceiling) Bundi (respondent No. 4).
(2.) THE Asstt. Collector (respondent No. 4) while deciding the ceiling proceedings admitted the fact of partition but, declared 96 Bighas 14 Biswas of land as surplus one with the petitioners -against which the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and then the petitioners filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue but without any success. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) MANIFOLD contention on behalf of the petitioners by Shri S.N. Pareek, learned counsel, is that, the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 189 and 225 measuring 25 Bighas 14 Biswas, was given to Smt. Sushila d/o Rampratap by Dhanna which was mutated in her name which was recorded and entered in the Jamabandi of S.Y. 2018 i.e. prior to 1 -4 -1966 -but the same was calculated with the land of the petitioners while determining the ceiling area which. could not have been calculated; that the land in dispute being joint Hindu family property apart from ancestral in the hands of the petitioners, the revenue courts fell in error in calculating the share of Paras Chand, Ajit Kumar and Rakesh Kumar sons of Ram Pratap with the share of Rampratap treating them as minor while upholding the fact of partition; and that the revenue authorities fell in eroor in holding that the whole of the lands in the hands of the petitioners was irrigated one but, the ceiling area of the petitioners was not determined as per the soil classification mentioned in the revenue records.;