JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned judgment Annexure-10 dated 5-9-1988 of the Board of Revenue and the Order Annexure-8 dated 5-7-1984 passed by the learned Addl. Collector. 2. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders only on one ground and, therefore, it is not necessary to narrate the facts of the case in detail. 3. The petitioner is the resident of village Jivandkalan, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali. She is the wife of Shri Prem Singh son of Shri Rughnath Singh. It is alleged that the petitioners father-in-law was the Ex-Jagirdar of village Jivandkalan and Nada Bhatan, Tehsil Desuri District Pali. It is further alleged that Rughnath Singh was in possession of a very considerable agricultural holdings measuring about 893.17 bighas. After the sales and gifts of the bulk of holdings, which were not initially recognised by the Authorised Officer, were recognised by the Revenue Board. Eventually, the Revenue Board vide its judgment Annexure-10 dated 5-9-1988 held that the petitioner possessed 2.75 standard acres of land in excess to the ceiling area. It was, therefore, ordered that the above land be acquired by the State Govt. 4. Being dissatisfied with the judgment Annexure-10 dated 5-9-1988, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. I have heard M/s. M.L. Garg and M.K. Garg for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above order passed by the learned Board of Revenue contravenes the provisions of S. 30-1(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 inasmuch as the land in question is a fragment and under S. 30-1(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the S.D.O. or the Authorised Officer may allow any person holding it to retain the possession thereof. The definition of fragment has been provided in sub-s. 11-B of S. 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and it lays down that fragment shall mean a piece of land less in area than the minimum prescribed by the State Govt, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of S. 53. The definition of fragment has been provided in sub-s. 11-B of S. 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and it lays down that fragment shall mean a piece of land less in area than the minimum prescribed by the State Govt, for the purpose of sub-section (1) of S. 53. The definition of fragment refers to the provisions of S. 53 of the Act and S. 53 of the Act refers to R. 66 of the Rules, which prescribes the minimum area for the purpose of Clause (a) of S. 180 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that since the land in question is only a fragment, the Authorised Officer ought not to have disturbed the possession of the petitioner and should not have passed the impugned judgment acquiring the impugned land. 8. It cannot be disputed that the above land is a fragment but merely on account of the fact that the land in question is only a fragment, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer or the Authorised Officer was not obliged not to pass any order acquiring the same and to allow the person in possession to retain the same. S. 30-I (2) of the Act reads as under: "(2) If any case covered by Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 30-E, the land in excess of the ceiling area applicable thereto is only a fragment, the Sub-Divisional Officer may allow the person holding it to retain the possession thereof unless such fragment can be utilised for the consolidation of a contiguous holding smaller in size than the ceiling area applicable to such holdings." 9. A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 30-1(2) of the Act shows that the S.D.O. has been empowered to exclude or not to acquire the piece of the land which is a fragment if necessary condition is fulfilled viz., that such fragment cannot be utilised for the consolidation of a contiguous holding smaller in size than the ceiling area applicable to such holdings. It is a question of fact whether any consolidation is possible after amalgamating this fragmented portion of the holdings of the petitioner with the contiguous holdings or not? In writ jurisdiction, such disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into. 10. I, therefore, find no force in this writ petition and it is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******