JUDGMENT 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, whereby, while disagreeing with the judgments of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, the learned Member, Board of Revenue has clubbed the land of the mother Keshar Bai with that of the son Bhagwati Pd. The learned Board of Revenue has further held that the transfers made in favour of other persons are not recognisable and so, the petitioner possesses excess land to the tune of 49.31 standard acres of land, and that excess land should be resumed by the State Govt. 2. It has been contended by Mr. Mehrish that the original land holder Kanhaiyalal expired In the year 1955 and he was survived by his wife and daughter. At the time when Kanhaiyalal expired, his daughter had no right to inherit the land on the death of her father but his wife became the limited holder of life interest in the land. Thereafter, petitioner Bhagwati Pd. was born posthumously and so, he became a co-sharer in the land. Hindu Succession Act came into force with effect from 17.6.1956 and at that time the mother's right to hold the land became absolute and therefore, late Kanhaiyalal's land devolved on two persons viz., Keshar Bai and Bhagwati Pd. 3. It has been contended by Mr. Jhakad that by mutation No. 34 dated 30.8.1956, Mst. Keshar Bai told the Mutation authorities that the land be mutated in favour of her son Bhagwati Pd. This at best be treated to be surrender of land by Mst. Keshar Bai in favour of her son Bhagwati Pd., which could have been done by her as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which came into force prior to 30.8.1956. However, as no deed was executed by late Kanhaiyalal, this surrender was not according to law. Even if it is treated to be a gift of the land to the son then too, no gift deed has been executed as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was right that two units at least should have been recognised. 4. So far as the family settlement is concerned, this has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Board of Revenue as also by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. Thus, the judgment of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was right that two units at least should have been recognised. 4. So far as the family settlement is concerned, this has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Board of Revenue as also by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. When the uncle and sister had no right in the property in the year 1955 and if anybody wanted to give the land in gift or wanted to transfer the land in their favour that could have been done by execution of a registered sale deed and not by way of family settlement because Keshar Bai and Bhagwati Pd. were the khatedar tenants of that land. Accordingly, we agree with the view of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority as also with the learned Members, Revenue Board that this family settlement cannot be recognised. 5. Now, so far as the transfers are concerned, transfers have been effected in favour of these persons in the year 1971 and, therefore, these transfers have rightly been not taken into consideration for computation of the ceiling area in possession of the petitioner as they have been effected after 1.4.66. 6. In the result, this writ petition partly succeeds and it is ordered that Mst. Keshar Bai and Bhagwati Pd. be treated as two units and they are entitled to retain 60 standard acres of land and 19.31 standard acres of land is declared as surplus with them which could have been resumed by the State Govt. If excess land has been resumed then that excess land has to be restored back to Mst. Keshar Bai and Bhagwati Pd. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******