C.M.LODHA, C.J. - (1.) THESE are two connected writ petitions which can be conveniently disposed of by a single order. Writ petition No. 681 of 1978 is by the father Raghubir Singh while Writ Petition No. 769 of 1979 is by his minor son Surendrapal Singh through his next friend Shri Jagjit Singh, maternal grand -father of the minor. The relief claimed in both the petitions is the same, namely, that the order dated August 6, 1977, by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, (marked Annx. 3) be set aside.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that proceedings under Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Act No. 3 of 1955) (which will hereinafter be called the Act of 1955) were commenced for determining the ceiling area for the petition Raghubir Singh. The Sub -Divisional Officer Hanumangarh, by his order dated August 10, 1972, determined the Ceiling area, but the Revenue Appellate Authority, on appeal by Raghubir Singh, set aside the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer on March 6, 1973; and remanded the case. The matter was taken to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan by a revision application and the Board by its order dated April 14, 1975 directed that the ceiling area for the petitioner may be determined according to the old law i.e. Act of 1955 and not according to the new law, i.e. Rajasthan -Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 In pursuance of the direction by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hanuroangarh, by his order dated May 5, 1976 (Anx. 1) held that the petitioner Surendrapal Singh, aged 12 years, was a minor son of Ragubir Singh and used to study in the Punjab and further that the land in possession of Raghubir Singh was ancestral. The Sub Divisional Officer, therefore, came to the conclusion that the father and the son constitute two separate units and each one of them was entitled to get 62 Bighas and 8 Biswas Thus, it was held that petitioners are entitled to retain 124 Bighas and 16 Biswas only and the surplus land measuring 4 Bighas and 46 Biswas may be resumed Aggrieved by the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Raghubir Singh filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who by his order dated September 6, 1976 (Annx. 2) dismissed the appeal and upheld the order by the Sub -Divisional Officer. Dissatisfied with the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Raghubir Singh filed a revision -application under Section 230 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the Board that the peiitioner was in possession of 12 Bighas only and not 129 Bighas and 3 Biswas as held by the lower courts. He sought permission to adduce additional evidence in support of his contention. The application for adducing additional evidence was disallowed. However, the learned Member of the Board came tithe conclusion that Surendrapal Singh was born to Raghubir Singh on March 14, 1963 and was only 13 years of age when the ceiling proceedings were finalised by the Sub -Divisional Officer on May 5, 1976. He further held that the revisions of the old ceiling law applied to the case but the Sub -Divisional Officer had committed an error of law in determining the ceiling area under the new law, i.e. the Act of 73 The Board went on to hold that there is no provision for separate units in Chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955. In the ultimate analysis the learned Member found that there is a gross and patent illegality in the order of the learned Sub -Divisional Officer and. consequently, he set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated May 5, 1976 as well as the appellate order by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated September 6, 1976 and remanded the case to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, for fresh determination of the ceiling area for the petitioner in accordance with law A certified copy of the order of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan has been placed en the record and marked Annexure 3. The contention raised by Mr. L.R. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that no appeal having been filed by the State from the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated May 5, 1976, the said order became final tend he Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to set aside that part of the Sub Divisional Officer's order which had gone against the State and in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that in such circumstances the powers regarding general supervision and Control by the Revenue Board over revenue courts and revenue officers could not be exercised to the detriment of she petitioners. In supports of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Koran Singh v. Board of Revenue Rajasthan 1962 R.L.W. 171. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned Government Advocate for the State of, Rajasthan, has urged that a patent illegality had been committed by the Sub -Divisional Officer while determining the ceiling area for the petitioners by his order dated May 5, 1976, and therefore, the Board had jurisdiction in exercise of its powers of superintendence and control under Section 221 of the Act of 1955 to correct the patent illegality To fortify his submission, he has placed reliance on Harchand v. Rajasthan Revenue Board I.L.R. (1952) 2 Raj. 833, Kana and Ors. v. Board of Revenue, Rajasthan I.L.R. (1955) 5 Raj. 55, a Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 685 of 1978 Fateh Khan and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on April 20, 1979 and Maneck Custodji v. Sarofazali : AIR1976SC2446 .
(3.) SECTION 221 of the Act of 1955 reads as under: 221. Subordination of revenue courts. The general superintendence and control over all revenue courts shall be vested in, and all such Courts shall be subordinate to the Board and subject to such superintendence, control and subordination - (x x x x) (b) all Additional Collectors, Sub -Divisional Officers, Assistant Collectors and Tehsildars in a District shall be subordinate to the Collector thereof, (c) all Assistant Collectors, Tehsildars and Naib -Tehsildars in a subdivision shall be subordinate to the Sub -Divisional Officer thereof and (d) all Additional Tehsildars and Naib -Tehsildars in a tehasil shall be subordinate to the Tehsildar thereof.;