JUDGMENT 1. - This writ, petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated February 24, 1988, by which, the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. It has been prayed by the petitioners that the above said order may be quashed and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bundi may be directed to recover the possession of the surplus land out of the unencumbered land possessed by no petitioner No. 5 and he may further be directed to recover the balance of the surplus land from the petitioners, in case the land possessed by non-petitioner No. 5 falls short of surplus land. 2. It is submitted by Mr. K.K. Mehrish, learned counsel, that the petitioners are agriculturists by vocation. The Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1973 (for brevity, 'New Ceiling Law') came into force w.e.f. January 1, 1973. Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 were framed. The SDO, Bundi, issued a notice to Mr. Ranjeet Singh, non-petitioner No. 5, under Section 11 (1) of the New Ceiling Law, calling upon him to furnish the returns of his holdings within a period of 30 days. He submitted his reply and after hearing him, the SDO, vide his judgment dated July 13, 1984 (Anx. 1), declared 71 bighas of land, situated in village Chhatarpura, Tehsil and District, Bundi, as surplus land and ordered the acquisition of the same, and also directed to take possession of the said land. In the said judgment, at S. No. 9, while giving particulars of the land to be taken in possession, the land measuring 19 bighas, one biswa, in Khasra No. 146, was also mentioned. Out of love and affection, non-petitioner No. 5, had gifted, by a registered gift-deed dated March 28, 1980, 39 bighas and four biswas of land of village Chhatarpura, in favour of non-petitioner No. 6 and possession of the same was given to him vide Anx. 2. In this gift-deed, at S. No. 4, the same land of Khasra No. 146 was also given as a gift. 2. In this gift-deed, at S. No. 4, the same land of Khasra No. 146 was also given as a gift. Since the petitioners needed agricultural lands for subsistence of their families, Ganga Kishan, father and husband of petitioners No. 3 to 9, and petitioners No. 1, 2 and 10 and non-petitioner No. 7, purchased the said land measuring 18 bighas and one biswa of Khasra No. 146 in consideration of Rs. 49,000/- from Avinash Chandra, father and guardian of non-petitioner No. 6, through a registered sale-deed dated June 6, 1983 (Anx. 3). They were also given possession of the same and since then, the petitions and non-petitioner No. 7 are in possession of the land and they cultivate the same by their own labours and implements, and are earning the livelihood of their families from the same. Consequent on the sale of the land, mentioned above, mutation No. 394 of village Chhatarpura was entered in favour of the purchasers, which was duly attested by Tehsildar, Bundi, on July 27, 1983. This land was ordered to be entered into the Khatedari of the purchasers. A photostat copy of Jamaba ldi, for the Samvant Years 2039 to 2042, has been produced and marked Anx. 4. 3. The petitioners came to know that amongst the other lands of non- petitioner No. 5, the land purchased by them has been ordered to be acquired in the ceiling proceedings under the New Ceiling Law, therefore, claim petition was filed in the Court of the SDO, Bundi, for releasing the same from acquisition, as this land was encumbered land. However, the SDO, vide his judgment dated February 11, 1985 (Anx. 5) dismissed the claim petition. An appeal against the said judgment was filed in the Court of the Collector, Bundi and, in the memorandum of appeal, it was repeated that non-petitioner No. 5 had other unencumbered land in his possession, which should have been first acquired in the proceedings under the New Ceiling Law. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, vide judgment dated September 10, 1987 (Anx. 6). The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application all before the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, which was summarily dismissed vide judgment dated February 24, 1988 (Anx. 7). 4. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, vide judgment dated September 10, 1987 (Anx. 6). The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application all before the Board of Revenue of Rajasthan, which was summarily dismissed vide judgment dated February 24, 1988 (Anx. 7). 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Revenue Board has seriously erred in holding that since the transfer of the disputed land has been made after appointed date, i. e., January 1, 1973, no recognition can be given to this transfer. Hence, few lines order was passed and appeal was dismissed summarily. It is further contended that the sale-deed is a registered document, which goes to prove that the transaction was bona fide. 5. We have beard both the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on record. Section 18 of the New Ceiling Law lays down that the person holding or acquiring land in excess of-ceiling area applicable to him shall have the right to select any land within the ceiling limit which he wants to retain in his possession and such right shall be exercised by specifying the land so selected in the return acquired to be furnished under this Act. He will have a right to file objections, regarding exercise of his option sofar as the excess land is concerned and he can choose which of the lands held by him should be surrendered. Non-petitioner No. 5 holds in his Khatedari and possession lands measuring 96 bighas in District Bundi, which are unencumbered. There seems to be some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the gift-deed, in favour of non-petitioner No. 6 was fictitious. Details of the land held by non- petitioner No. 5 in various villages of District Bundi have been given in paras No. 11 to 16 of the petition and certified copies of the Jamabandi have also been filed and marked Annexures 8 to 12. Thus, non-petitioner No. 5 had enough unencumbered excess land to surrender the same to be acquired under the New Ceiling Law. Thus, non-petitioner No. 5 had enough unencumbered excess land to surrender the same to be acquired under the New Ceiling Law. A bear reading of sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the New Ceiling Law shows that "notwithstanding any thing contained in Section 18 or any other provision of this act, where any transfer of land is not recognised or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to the transfer or under sub-section (1) of Section 6, surrender of surplus land vesting in the State Government shall be made by transferor out of the land remaining with him after the transfer and the balance of surplus land remaining, if any, shall be recovered from the transferee by his ejectment. In case surplus land or any portion of it is recovered from the transferee, the price paid by him for such land or portion there of shall be deducted from the amount of acquisition payable to the transferor and shall be paid to the transferee to an extent not exceeding such amount of acquisition." Both these provisions clearly indicate that, even though transfer of the land is not recognised, after the appointed date, i. e., January 1, 1973, and the transferred land will be considered to be the land of the transferor, but sofar as the surrender of the surplus land is concerned, the transferor has first to surrender the unencumbered land and it is only when the unencumbered land is not sufficient or is not available, then alone the balance of surplus land has to be recovered from the transferee. It further provides that transferee shall be paid the price of the land out of the amount of acquisition payable to the transferor. The same view was taken by this Court in Banwari Lal Nagpal v. State of Rajasthan & others, RRD 1983 P. 135 . The learned Revenue Board has, therefore, apparently erred in holding that no recognition to the sale-deed can be given after the appointed date. What is a required is not to give recognition to the sale-deed, but to give effect to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 16 read with Section 18 of the New Ceiling Law. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the judgments of the SDO, Bundi, dated July 13, 1984 and February 11, 1985 (Anxs. What is a required is not to give recognition to the sale-deed, but to give effect to the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 16 read with Section 18 of the New Ceiling Law. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the judgments of the SDO, Bundi, dated July 13, 1984 and February 11, 1985 (Anxs. I & 5) ; the judgment dated September 10, 1987 (Anx. 6), passed by the Collector, Bundi ; and the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated February 24, 1988 (Anx. 7) are quashed and set aside. The SDO, Bundi is directed to take possession of the surplus land, out of the unencumbered land possessed by non-petitioner No. 5. If the same falls short, the balance of the surplus land be recovered from the petitioners. The lands, measuring 18 bighas and one biswa, comprised in Khasra No. 146, situated in village Chhatarpura, Tehsil/District, Bundi, be treated as encumbered land. 7. The petition allowed, as above, with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******