JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under section 23(3A) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act of 1973 against the order of Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 21-10-1986 by which 11.07 standard acres of land has been ordered to be resumed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State and have gone through the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has expressly given up ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of appeals and, therefore, it is no not necessary to mention these grounds. 4. It is argued that on 1-4-1965 Kesri Lal had 17.53 standard acres of land and his son Ladu Ram has 6 standard acres of land. The total comes to 23.53 standard acres which was less than 30 standard acre, that can be retained by an individual whose family consists of 5 or less members. It is argued that the learned Additional Collector was wrong in holding that the total land in the Khata of Kesri Lal was 41.07 standard acres. It may be mentioned that the ceiling proceedings were initiated against Kesri Lal but during the pendency of the case he died and the case was reopened against his sons Rampal and Ladu Ram. The difference in the calculation is due to the fact that the land entered in the Khata of some other persons by the following mutations has been included in the land held by Kesri Lal. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that this land should not have been included where as the contention on behalf of the State is that the land has rightly been included in the Khata of Kesri Lal. The particulars are as under : Mutation No. Date of attestation In favour of 317 25-12-1960 Rampal 74 20-3-1960 Bhura Lal 409 20-11-1964 Tara Chand 85 20-3-1960 Narain 86 20-3-1960 Laxman 87 20-3-1960 Bansi Lal 208 17-7-1960 Kalyan 219 17-7-1960 Ghisa 216 17-7-1960 Rama 213 17-7-1960 Kalyana 211 17-7-1960 Narain 210 17-7-19(0 Mangu 221 17-7-1960 Ghisa Mangu 222 17-7-1960 Heera Lalu 5. A perusal of the above chart shows that except mutation No. 409 dated 20-11-1964 all other mutations have been attested on the ground that some other persons are in possession of the land. A perusal of the above chart shows that except mutation No. 409 dated 20-11-1964 all other mutations have been attested on the ground that some other persons are in possession of the land. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the persons in whose favour the mutations have been attested were shikmi tenants who acquired khatedari rights and therefore this land should not be included in the khata of Kesri Lal. In support of this contention the learned counsel has referred to an unreported judgment Raghuraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Appeal Ceiling Kota/33/78 decided on 12-8-1981. It was held in that case that when mutation has been attested on the basis of unregistered deed the transaction cannot be said to be sham or bogus. AIR 1979 Allahabad 92 has also been referred to in this connection wherein it has been held that if the land has been taken by the State in consolidation proceedings, it cannot be included in the total land of the assesses. 6. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has cited 1978 RRD NUC 46 and 1984 RRD 909 in support of his contention that the mutation attested on the basis of an unregistered sale deed is invalid. It is also argued that in the instant case except in the case of mutation No. 409 there is no sale deed - registered or unregistered and therefore these mutations cannot be recognised as valid. 7. To this argument the learned counsel for the appellant replied that if the mutations are not recognised that the appellants will be at liberty to give these lands in option. The learned Deputy Government Advocate says that there is no objection to these lands being surrendered by the appellants in option given by them provided they have not executed any registered sale deed after the above mutation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that Kesri Lal had two major sons Rampal and Ladu Ram and, therefore, their share should have been excluded. But this contention has no force because there is no evidence on record from which it can be said that the land belonged Kesri Lal's father, Srikishaa. Thus, is cannot be said that the land was ancestral in the hands of Kesri Lal. 9. But this contention has no force because there is no evidence on record from which it can be said that the land belonged Kesri Lal's father, Srikishaa. Thus, is cannot be said that the land was ancestral in the hands of Kesri Lal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the number of family members comes to more than five and the learned Addl. Collector was wrong in holding that there were only five members in the family. A perusal of the record shows that in his declaration Kesri Lal mentioned as many as 12 members which included himself, his wife Sita, his two sons Rampal and Ladu Ram. He has also included his daughters-in-law Bhuri and Susheela. Obviously the daughters-in-law cannot be so included. The grand sons and grand daughters mentioned in the declaration are Mahavir six years, Gopal till three years, Gita fourteen years, Savitri ten years, Kailash three years and Shakuntla two years The learned Deputy Government Advocate has rightly pointed out that in his application dated 4-8-70, Kesri Lal has described Gita and Savitri as his daughters and in the declaration he has described Gita and Savitri as his grand-daughters. This shows that the declaration given by Kesri Lal was wrong. I agree with the learned Deputy Government Advocate and hold that the family members have rightly been determined as five. The ages of the grand sons and grand daughters mentioned in the declaration shows that some of them were not born on 1-4-66. 10. The last contention is that Ladu Lal has gone in adoption to Jagannath and the land which has come to Ladu Lal as the adopted son of Jagannath has also been included in the total land of Kesri Lal and the same should be excluded. After the conclusion of arguments, the appellants have filed certain documents in his court which support the contention advanced. 11. In view of the above discussion the appeal is partly allowed and the case is remanded to Additional Collector Ajmer with the following directions: (a) the land which has come to appellant Laduram as the adopted son of Jagannath will be excluded from consideration; (b) if any excess land is found the appellants will be at liberty to surrender any land as mentioned in para 6 above. 12. The parties are directed to appear before Additional Collector Ajmer on 15-3-1988.Appeal partly Allowed. 12. The parties are directed to appear before Additional Collector Ajmer on 15-3-1988.Appeal partly Allowed. *******