JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner's ceiling case was decided by the Authorised Officer, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated March 12, 1976 (Annx. 1) whereby, the petitioner's land to the extent of 136 bighas 5 biswas was ordered to be resumed and his ceiling area was fixed as 45 bighas 8 biswas. This order was upheld in appeal, by the Collector, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated April 22, 1976 (Annx. 2). The petitioner then went in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue recognised the two transfers dated May 14, 1968; one relating to 47 bighas 6 biswas and the other relating to 49 bighas 9 biswas. For the remaining transfers, the Board said that the transfer dated May 14, 1968 is not proved and the sale dated June 10. 1971 is not proved bonafide and in respect of the third transfer dated October 31, 1969, the Board said that the same is also not proved. In view of these findings relating to the transfers. the petitioner's appeal was partly allowed and the case was sent back to the Authorised Officer to determine the quantum of land, which can be resumed in the light of the observations made by the Board and the Authorised Officer was also directed to take further necessary action. After the remand of the case by the Board by its order dated March 18, 1977 (Anna. 3), the Authorised Officer ordered for resumption of 39 bighas 10 biswas land of the petitioner by his order dated Sept. 17, 1977 and the same was upheld in appeal by the Additional Collector vide his order dated 28-11-77. The petitioner has now sought quashing of the order of the Board of Revenue, whereby the aforesaid three transfers have not been recognized. 2. I have heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.C. Bhansali, learned Deputy Government Advocate. 3. Mr. Garg. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has placed the sale-deed dated May 14. 1972 (sic 1968) relating to 20 bighas land executed in favour of Arsad Sayeed. A wrong admission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Board of Revenue that there was no written sale-deed. In fact, there was a registered sale-deed with regard to the transfer. 1972 (sic 1968) relating to 20 bighas land executed in favour of Arsad Sayeed. A wrong admission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Board of Revenue that there was no written sale-deed. In fact, there was a registered sale-deed with regard to the transfer. Suffice it to say that the petitioner has failed to prove the sale before the Ceiling Authorities and besides that, he has not been able to prove that the transfer was a bonafide one. At this stage if the sale-deed is allowed to be produced, the case will have to be sent back to prove the sale and also to prove that the transfer was a bonafide one. The petitioner has been negligent in the conduct of the case and the lacunae cannot now be allowed to be filled in. 4. So far as the transfer dated October 31, 1969 is concerned, no sale-deed has been produced and the learned Board of Revenue was right and justified in not recognising this transfer. 5. Coming to the sale-deed dated June 10, 1971. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue has taken an erroneous view of law that the transfer cannot be treated as bonafide. There was a long litigation between the petitioner and the transferees and in the suit by the transferees against the petitioner, a decree for permanent injunction was passed on the basis that the transferees were the tenants of the land in question for about 15-20 years. The decree was passed on 31-1-66. Thereafter, an agreement to sell was entered into between the parties and under the agreement of the sale consideration was paid and ultimately, the sale was effected by a registered sale-deed. The facts leading to the sale amply demonstrate that the sale is not a sham and bogus transaction. The facts, in my opinion, are abundantly clear that there was litigation between the parties, the parties entered into the agreement, which ultimately culminated on a sale. These facts show that the transaction is a bonafide one. In my opinion, the Board of Revenue took an erroneous view that this transfer cannot be treated as bonafide. I, therefore, find that this transfer is saved by the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. This land is not available for resumption. In my opinion, the Board of Revenue took an erroneous view that this transfer cannot be treated as bonafide. I, therefore, find that this transfer is saved by the provisions of Section 6 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. This land is not available for resumption. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get this land of 25 bighas reduced from the total land ordered to be acquired. If 25 bighas are reduced from the total land ordered to be resumed, there remains 14 bighas 10 biswas land which can he acquired from the petitioner. The petitioner shall surrender the land to the extent of 14 bighas 10 biswas. 6. The writ petition is partly allowed as above. The parties shall bear their own costs. *******