JUDGMENT 1. No one had appeared on behalf of the non-applicant and so the revision has been heard ex-parte. The only point raised by the learned Deputy Government Advocate is that the Revenue Appellate Authority was in error in directing that notice should be issued to all the transferees in accordance with rule 14 of the Ceiling Rules and an opportunity given to them for hearing. 2. It has been pointed out that under section 30 D of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the burden of proving Whether any transfer falls under clause (i) or (ii) of the section lies on the transferor and there is nothing in the section or in the whole ceiling law which implies that transferees of land should be given a hearing. 3. I have considered the matter. Rules 14 of the ceiling Rules, which has been cited by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, requires the S.D.O. to issue notice to landholder and tenants informing them of the Tehsildar's report and directing them to appear on a specified date if they wished to be heard before the determined the ceiling area applicable to each such person. Since section 30D specifically forbids certain transfers, and the section itself casts the duty of proving transfers on the transferor, the Revenue Appellate Authority was plainly in error in holding that under rule 14 all transferees should be given an opportunity of being heard. This could never have been the intention. The notice referred to in Rule 14 is plainly meant for those whose ceiling cases are under the consideration of the S.D.O. and not others to whom they may have transferred land, whether legally or illegally. 4. The result is that revision application of the State is allowed and the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner is set aside.Revision allowed. *******