JUDGMENT 1. - We allow the application filed by the petitioner for bringing the legal representatives of the petitioner No. 2 Ram Narain on record. The petitioner should file amended cause title today. 2. The present petition arises out of the proceedings under Chapter IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (old ceiling law). The proceedings were initiated in respect of agricultural land of Jagannath petitioner No. 1. The Authorised Officer SDO, Kota under his order dated May 16, 1975, has determined the ceiling area of Jagannath Prasad and has declared 76.78 standard acres of land is in excess of ceiling area. An appeal was preferred by Jagannath before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota who vide its order dated Oct. 23, 1975, allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Authorised Officer with the direction that petitioner No. 1 should be given an opportunity to submit his reply and to produce his evidence and then the ceiling case of the petitioner No. 1 should be decided in accordance with law. Jagannath Prasad filed written statement (Annr. 6) in which a case was set-up that 77 bighas of agricultural land was his self-acquired property, but so far as 238 bighas of land is concerned, it was his self acquired property having come from his father Bhanwarlal. He also stated that he has an adult son Ram Narain, to whom his father Bhanwarlal gave 135 bighas 5 biswas of land. Other pleas were also raised that some land was given to his daughter by Bhanwarlal. In support of the written statement, some affidavits were filed. The Authorised Officer under his order dated April 23, 1976 observing that despite an opportunity having been granted to Jagannath he has not produced any evidence which can affect his earlier order and therefore, learned Authorised Officer said that he has no good ground to change his earlier order and reiterated that 76.78 bighas of land was in excess of the ceiling area. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, but the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, though it held that opportunity was not granted to Jagannath Prasad to lead evidence. An appeal against the aforesaid order was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, but the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, though it held that opportunity was not granted to Jagannath Prasad to lead evidence. The petitioner and his son Ram Narain who had filed an application before the Authorised Officer to be impleaded as a party filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue under its order dated May 14, 1979, took a view that sufficient opportunity has been granted to Jagannath to lead evidence. A Special Appeal was also filed and a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue under its order dated September 3, 1979, dismissed the same. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a copy of Jamabandi had been filed before the learned Authorised Officer and a reference to it has been made by the Board of Revenue under its order dated May 14, 1979. He contends that even assuming that despite opportunity being granted to Jagannath he did not lead any evidence, but once a copy of the jamabandi has been filed on record, it was the duty of the Authorised Officer to decide the controversy after considering the same. It is the duty of the Authorised Officer to give a categorical finding as to whether it is ancestral property or not. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Jugal Kishore and others v. S.D.O., Baran and others, RLR 1988 (2) 595 . In that case the court said that once a case is set-up that the property is ancestral, it is the duty of the Authorised Officer to decide the controversy. In para 5, the court said - "In view of the above proposition of law, we are of the opinion that the subordinate authorities fell in error in not giving any finding as to whether the property in the hands of the petitioner. Radhavallabh was ancestral and further that both the authorities did not care to inquire into a question as to whether the sons of Radhavallabh (petitioner) were dependent on their father or not". The petitioner submitted a certified copy of the mutation dated May 24, 1965 from which prima facie it appears that Bhanwarlal, father of Jagannath Prasad was khatedar of 238 bighas of land situated in village Joravarpura, Teh. Pipalda, Distt. The petitioner submitted a certified copy of the mutation dated May 24, 1965 from which prima facie it appears that Bhanwarlal, father of Jagannath Prasad was khatedar of 238 bighas of land situated in village Joravarpura, Teh. Pipalda, Distt. Kota and on his death mutation was recorded in the name of Jagannath Prasad. Even if learned Authorised Officer thought that it was not necessary for him to decide the application of Ram Narain, he must have taken into consideration the copy of jamabandi which is a public document and after considering the same, he should have recorded his decision whether the property i.e. 238 bighas of land was or was not ancestral property. Even the Board of Revenue did not apply its mind to this aspect of the matter and it will appear from copy of the memo of Special Appeal which was filed before the Board of Revenue that it was clearly stated in para 2 of the grounds before the Single Bench, that the affidavit in support of ancestral property has been filed, but the learned Member of the Board of Revenue did not consider it. When the application is filed before a court to take certain documentary evidence on record, generally such document should be considered and then the judgment should be pronounced. Learned Single Member of the Board of Revenue did not consider the same. At any rate when copy of the Jamabandi was filed, it was the duty of the Authorised Officer to decide whether the property is ancestral property or not. 4. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Board of Revenue fell in error in failing to take into consideration the relevant document to come to the conclusion whether the property is ancestral property or not. 5. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated September 3, 1979 and direct the Board of Revenue to restore the appeal to its original number, allow the parties to lead their documentary evidence in support of the fact whether the property is ancestral property or not and then to decide the Special Appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in this order and give a categorical finding as to whether 238 bighas of land is the ancestral property or not. The parties are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on February 18, 1991.Writ Petition allowed. *******