This appeal has been filed by Balu under sec. 66(2) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against an order of the Additional Collector Ajmer dated 14.4.1957 presumably under sec. 44 of the Act. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as will. A short and simple point of law is involved for determination in this case, and to appreciate the same he facts of this case may briefly be stated as follows: —Balu, Ganpat etc. recorded Bhuswamis of Khata Nos. 249 and 764 including 10 Khasra numbers measuring 45 bighas 5 biswas and 13 Khasra Nos. measuring 90 bighas 11 biswas. In both these Khatas respectively sold Khasra Nos. 669 and 670 measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas 10 biswansis to one Shri Rani Bux S/o Ladu Ram of Liri on 29.9.1956. The transferer applied before the Tehsildar Beawar for sanctioning mutation in favour of the transferees. The Patwari while required to report the facts of the case pointed out that the sale had been carried out through registered deed; that the transferee holds three standard acres; that the transferer holds 14 standard acres out of which half standard acre has been transferred and that as the a the requirements of Rule 53 of the Rules framed under the Act have not been complied with the alienation be declared void The Naib Tehsildar forwarded these papers to the Collector who after hearing the parties held that as the provisions of the Act were ignored the transfer was void. He further directed the ejectment of the transferee from the land with the right to recover the purchase money from the transferee by due process of law. It was also directed by him that as the transferers had more than 8 standard acres land with them the land in question became vacant and vested in the Government and the seme was open for allotment to landless tenants by the S.D.O. Beawar. This appeal has been directed against this order. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have frankly conceded before us that the decision of the learned Additional Collector in-as-much as it relates to the declaration of the transfer as void and ejectment of the transferee is concerned it is perfectly valid and is not open to any challenge. This appeal has been directed against this order. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have frankly conceded before us that the decision of the learned Additional Collector in-as-much as it relates to the declaration of the transfer as void and ejectment of the transferee is concerned it is perfectly valid and is not open to any challenge. Evidently this part of decision is in conformity with the requirements of the Act. Sec. 34 of the Act lays down that where Bhuswami wants to transfer by sale land comprised in his holding he shall offer it for sale in the prescribed manner and the categories of persons mentioned in the Act which are as below: (a) first to the tenant of such land; (b) next to a co-operative farm in the village; (c) next to a co-sharer in the holding; (d) next to an institution established in the village for a charitable purpose; (e) next to an agriculturist holding land or residing in the village; and (f) lastly to any other persons. The appellants admit that the requirement11! of this section were not complied with and hence as laid down in sec.43 of the Act the transfer being in contravention of the provisions of the Act becomes void The consequences that fallow from a transfer being void are given in sec. 44. Sub-sec.(1) of this section lays down that where a transfer of any holding or part thereof has been made in contravention of this chapter the transferee shall notwithstanding anything contained in any law be liable to ejectment from such holding or part. The proviso makes it clear that transferee shall have the right to recover the purchase money from the transferor by due process of law. The applicants, therefore, have no objection to that part of the order of the learned Additional Collector which declares the transfer void and directs the ejectment of the transferee from the parts of the holding transferred in the case. Their objection relates to that part of the order which directs the vesting of the land in dispute in the Government and authoriser the S.D.O. Beawar to allot it to landless persons. To determine the validity or otherwise of this objection the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 44 of the Act have to be examined. Their objection relates to that part of the order which directs the vesting of the land in dispute in the Government and authoriser the S.D.O. Beawar to allot it to landless persons. To determine the validity or otherwise of this objection the provisions contained in sub-sec. (2) of sec. 44 of the Act have to be examined. It runs as below:— "On the ejectment of the transferee, so much of the land as is equivalent to the minimum area shall be restored to the possession of the transferor and such land as is in excess of the minimum area shall become vacant land and shall vest in the State." The contention is that the wordings of this sub-section make it clear that on the ejectment of the transferee so much of the land as is equivalent to the minimum area shall be restored to the possession of the transferor, and such land as is in excess of of the minimum area shall become vacant land which shall vest in the State. The learned Additional Collector interpreted this to mean that as the transferer held minimum area besides the land in dispute hence the transferred land become vacant land. If the decision of the learned Additional Collector be taken as correct it would mean that the section lays down that upon ejectment of the transferee the restoration of possession should be determined with reference to the area that was held by the transferer and was not transferred by him and if it was found to be in excess of the minimum area then the transferred area should be declared vacant land as may vest in the State. This is evidently against the explicit phraseology of this sub-section. It is clearly laid down that "so much of the land as is equivalent to the minimum area shall be restored to the possession of the transferor." There is no reference therein to the total area held by the transferor and the area which was not included within the transfer. Hence to interpret that the land which was the subject of transfer should be restored to the transferee only when the other area with him was less than the minimum area would be to introduce an intent in the law which has not been explicitly laid down by the legislature. Hence to interpret that the land which was the subject of transfer should be restored to the transferee only when the other area with him was less than the minimum area would be to introduce an intent in the law which has not been explicitly laid down by the legislature. The clear provision is that the area of the land which has been the subject of transfer is to be examined irrespective of the area of other lands that may be held by the transferer and if the land which is the subject of transfer is less than the minimum area prescribed in sec. 26 of the Act then the transferor is entitled to restoration of possession. It is not permissible to introduce a restriction in the clear provi-sions of the law which has not been incorporated by the legislature itself as the duty of the courts is to administer the law as they find it. If the legislature intended to lay down that in such cases other areas held by transferors were to be looked into for deciding the restoration of the land transferred. There was no reason why it should not have been provided within the Act itself. We may also observe in this connection that sub-sec. (2) opens with the phrase on the ejectment of the transferees" and evidently the question of restoration has to be determined with respect to the land from which the transferee has been ejected, and out of which land so much as equivalent to the minimum areas is to be restored to the possession of the transferer. Thus the intention of the legislature is made abundantly clear. We may also refer to Rules 53 to 57 framed under the Act in this connection. Rules 53 requires the Bhuswamis to give a notice through the Tehsildar giving the particulars in the prescribed form. Rule 54 lays down that a person having a right of priority shall lose it unless with three months from the date of notice he pays or tenders the price to the Bhuswami proposing the sale of the land Rule 55 relates to cases where transferor has omitted to serve notice. Rule 54 lays down that a person having a right of priority shall lose it unless with three months from the date of notice he pays or tenders the price to the Bhuswami proposing the sale of the land Rule 55 relates to cases where transferor has omitted to serve notice. Under Rule 53 and according to the provisions contained in this Rule (55) a person entitled to priority may apply to the Collector to enforce his rights on the grounds that no notice was given, or that the tender was made but was refused or that the price stated in the notice was not fixed in good faith. Rule 56 lays down the duties of the Patwari in case of such transfer coming to his notice. Rule 57 authorises the Collector to issue notice to the transferor to show cause why action under sec. 44 be not taken "in respect of the land in question." We consider the words "in respect of the land in question" significant as throwing considerable light upon the point in dispute. The land in question is only that which forms the subject matter of the transfer and sec. 44 for reasons stated above clearly prescribes the procedure to be followed in respect of that land. There is to our mind nothing in the Act or in the Rules to justify the interpretation put by sec. 44 by the learned lower courts. The land in question is admittedly much below the minimum area and hence no question of its becoming vacant land or vesting in the State can arise. We, therefore, allow this appeal in part and direct that the order of the Additional Collector relating to the disputed land becoming the vacant land and vesting in the State shall stand set aside and the land in dispute shall be restored to the possession of the transferor. In other respects the order of the lower court shall stand confirmed. We make no order as to costs.