JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate order, direction or a writ for quashing the orders passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 and for declaring that the petitioner and his son Kami Dan are not holding any surplus land or for remanding the matter to make proper inquiry. 2. The relevant facts may be stated as follows. Ceiling proceedings under old Ceiling Law i.e. under Chapter III-B (since repealed) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were initiated against Ratan Dan, father of the petitioner. During the pendency of the above proceedings,Shri Ratan Dan expired on 31/8/74. After inquiry, the authorised officer, namely, S.D.O., Bhinmal, vide his order dated 30-6-75, held that the petitioner was entitled to retain only 30 standard acres of land and the remaining 80.04 standard acres, being surplus land, be acquired by the Govt. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who accepted the same vide his order dated 4-9-75 and remanded the matter to the S.D.O. to decide the case afresh after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and making inquiry regarding the size of the family of the petitioner as on 1-4-66. The State filed a revision petition against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30-9-76. In pursuance of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 1-4-66, the S. D.O., Bhinmal again made the inquiry regarding the family of the deceased Ratandan and held that on the relevant date 1-4-66, the family of the petitioner consisted of his father, himself, his minor daughter Bhanwari Bai, minor son karni Dan and wife Suraj Bai. The S.D.O. further held that other members of the family were born after 1-4-66. In view of the above finding, the learned S.D.O. reiterated his previous decision. The petitioner again agitated the matter by filing an appeal against the order of JI The learned S.D.O. before the Revenue Appellate Authority who vide his order dated 4-7-80 dismissed the same. Undaunted, the petitioner filed a revision before Board of Revenue but it was also dismissed vide order dated 1-9-86. Aggrieved by all the above decisions, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Undaunted, the petitioner filed a revision before Board of Revenue but it was also dismissed vide order dated 1-9-86. Aggrieved by all the above decisions, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner contended before the authorities below that the land held by Ratan Dan was ancestral inasmuch as his father was a Jagirdar and after resumption of Jagir, he became a Khatedar tenant. It was further contended that even according to the finding given by the learned S.D.O., the family of Shri Ratan Dan consisted of three units according to the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (fixation of ceiling land) Govt. Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was also contended by the petitioner that at the relevant time, the petitioner was an adult member of the family. He and his minor son were not at all dependent upon Ratan Dan. Since the petitioner and his son Karni Dan were entitled to equal share in the Joint Hindu Family Property of deceased Ratan Dan and since they were not dependent on Ratan Dan, the land could not be clubbed together with the land of deceased Ratan Dan. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Courts below did not inquire about these facts and did not record any finding. 3. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Rampratap v. State of Raj, 1988 (2) RLR 521 and Jugal Kishore v. S.D.O., Baran, 1988 (2) RLR 595 . 4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the orders exhibits 1,2 and 3. There has been a concurrent finding of facts that Ratan Dan, Kesar Dan and his minor son as also his minor daughter and wife constituted a family. Hence, the land held by the petitioner had to be clubbed with that held by his father to determine the area of ceiling or surplus land. 5. Learned counsel has also argued that these questions were not specifically raised before the lower Courts. 6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. It cannot be gainsaid that through out the above protracted litigation, the petitioner has been pleading that the land in question was jagir land. After resumption of jagir, his father became khatedar tenant but by resumption the nature of the property did not change. 6. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. It cannot be gainsaid that through out the above protracted litigation, the petitioner has been pleading that the land in question was jagir land. After resumption of jagir, his father became khatedar tenant but by resumption the nature of the property did not change. It was ancestral property and continued to be so even after resumption of jagir. The petitioner further made categorical assertion that he and his minor son were not dependant on Ratan Dan. The petitioner and his son being coparceners of the joint family were entitled to a right in the whole of the property land. It is a principle of law that the co-sharers and coparceners have a right to joint enjoyment of their joint property. It is true that partition of Joint Hindu Family Property cannot be recorded as transfer for the simple reason that every coparcener has an antecedent right and title to the entire coparcenary property, though the existence of his right is not determined until partition takes place. 7. It is not in dispute that the Courts below have not given a definite finding as to whether the land in question was ancestral property of Ratan Dan and the petitioner and whether the coparceners-Ratan Dan petitioner and son etc. were entitled to any share in the land which was in the hands of the petitioner and his father and whether minor son was dependent on Ratan Dan. If the Courts below do not record finding on such important and material facts which are so germane for deciding the question of ceiling, the case requires adjudication by the authorised authority necessetating remand. 8. This view was taken by the D. B. of this Court in Jugal Kishore v. S. D.O., Baran, 1988 (2) RLR 595 and reiterated again in the D. B. Case Rampratap v. State of Raj (supra). 9. In this connection, I may also refer to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (fixation of ceiling of land) Govt. Rules, 1963. Rule 17 says that for the purpose of determining the ceiling area, all the land held individually by any member of a family or jointly by some or all the members of a family shall be deemed to be held by the family. Rules, 1963. Rule 17 says that for the purpose of determining the ceiling area, all the land held individually by any member of a family or jointly by some or all the members of a family shall be deemed to be held by the family. Sub-Rule 4 is very important and it reads as follows:- "In calculating the extent of land held by a family or by an individual person, the share of the member of the family or of the individual person in the land held by an Hindu undivided family, shall be taken into account." It says that the share of a member of a family or of an individual person in the land held by a Hindu undivided family shall be deemed to be the extent of land which, in case such share is held on the appointed date would have allotted to such member. 10. In view of the above discretion, I hold that the Revenue Authorities below fell into an error in not arriving at the finding on the question as to whether the land in question was ancestral property, whether the coparceners were entitled to any share in the above property which was in the hands of Ratan Dan and whether the petitioner and his minor son were dependant on Ratan Dan. I have, therefore, left with no alternative except the remand the case to the authorised officer. 11. therefore, accept the writ petition set aside the orders exhibits, 1, and 3 and remand the matter to the authorised officer to make an inquiry and then determine the ceiling area/surplus land and dispose of the matter in accordance with law after due notice to the parties. There is no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******