JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.3.1985 passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was dismissed and the judgment passed by the Board of Revenue was maintained. 2. Appellant Umed Singh (petitioner in the writ petition) and his wife Smt. Rajawat were the Khatedars with respect to 514 standard acres of agricultural land situated in villages Daulatgarh, Hathisar Ka Kheda, Ahiron Ka Kheda, Chadon Ka Kheda, Barrain, Barana, Marwon Ka Kheda, Lachhuta etc. After coming into force of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with effect from 26-11-63, the land-holders and tenants were required to file the declarations u/R. 9 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of the Ceiling of Agricultural Land) Rules, 1963 (for short, 'the Ceiling Rules, 1963) but the appellant did not file any declaration u/R. 9 of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 for the determination of the ceiling area applicable to him. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura (district Bhilwara), therefore, issued a notice u/R. 10 of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 requiring the appellant (land-holder) to furnish to him a declaration of his holding and the holding by his family members. The appellant, did not furnish any return/ declaration either u/R. 9 or in pursuance to the notice issued to him u/R. 10 of the Ceiling Rules, 1963. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura, thereafter directed the concerned Tehsildar to prepare the statement of the holding of appellant who had not submitted the declaration. The Tehsildar prepared the statement in Ceiling Form IV and submitted it before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer thereafter issued the notice u/R. 14 of the Rules to the appellant and asked him to appear before him if he wishes to be heard, before he determines the ceiling area applicable in his case. The appellant-petitioner, in pursuance to this notice received by him u/R. 14, filed the reply before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Gulabpura on 10.8.1971. In the objection filed by the appellant on 10.8.1971 it was stated that 300 standard acres of the land shown in his name is incorrect and his wife is holding 146 Bighas 14 Biswas of land only in village Borana. It was, also, mentioned in the reply that Ishwar Singh and Dungar Singh are not dependent upon him and they are holding the land which were transferred to them before 13.12.1963. It was, also, mentioned in the reply that Ishwar Singh and Dungar Singh are not dependent upon him and they are holding the land which were transferred to them before 13.12.1963. It was, also, mentioned that he was having a joint Hindu Family and Ishwar Singh, Dungar Singh and Jagmal Singh, being the co-parceners, have their right in the joint Hindu Family's property as no partition has been effected amongst them. It was, also, mentioned in the reply that the transfer of the land have been made before 31.12.1969 to the bonafide agriculturist who are the residents of Rajasthan and the transferees are in possession of the land which were transferred to them and if these transferred land are excluded then the appellant is not holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit applicable. An additional/supplementary reply was again filed on 28.5.1975. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura, after considering the evidence produced before him and the points raised by the counsel for the appellant, recognised the transfers with respect to 244.72 standard acres of the land made by the appellant and further held that the Khatedar is holding 514 standard acres of land on 24.2.1958 and after excluding 244.72 standard acres of the land which the Khatedar transferred to the bonafide agriculturist, the Khatedar, in the name of the Hindu Joint Family, was holding the land measuring 269.28 standard acres. The Sub-Divisional Officer further determined the ceiling area applicable to the appellant and held that looking to the family of the appellant he was entitled to have 40 standard acres of land u/R. 33-C and he, therefore, declared 229.28 standard acres of land as the 'surplus land'. Dissatisfied by the order dated 8.9.1975 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura, declaring 229.28 standard acres of the land as the surplus land, the appellant-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority, an application u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC was moved for taking some additional evidence on record. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the application filed by the appellant-petitioner u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC and decided the appeal on merit by his order dated 1.12.1975. Before the Revenue Appellate Authority, an application u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC was moved for taking some additional evidence on record. The Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed the application filed by the appellant-petitioner u/O. 41 R. 27 CPC and decided the appeal on merit by his order dated 1.12.1975. The appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Gulabpura, determining the ceiling area of the appellant-petitioner was maintained with this modification that the Gair Mumkin land in the nature of rocks, way and drainage held by the land owner may be excluded from the surplus land. Aggrieved with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. The revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 3.11.1976. The appellant-petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue which was, also, dismissed on 20.1. 1977. After the dismissal of the review petition filed by the appellant-petitioner, a notice was given to the appellant in the month of April, 1977 for exercising his discretion to surrender the excess land and the Sub-Divisonal Officer thereafter ordered for the resumption of 221 standard acres of the land. The appellant-petitioner thereafter filed the writ petition challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gulabpura determining the ceiling area as well as the resumption of 221 standard area of the land. The writ petition was contested by the State and the Hon'ble Chief Justice, by his judgment dated 19.3.1985 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant on the ground that the land held by the petitioner-appellant was not the ancestral land and, therefore, R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 is not applicable to him and his sons, being the members of the family, are not entitled to retain one unit of the land. It is against this judgment that the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the land held by the appellant was admitted as the Jagir land, therefore, it is in the character of ancestral land and all the three sons of the appellant, who are the co-parceners, are entitled to their separate share in the land of the joint Hindu Family property. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the land held by the appellant was admitted as the Jagir land, therefore, it is in the character of ancestral land and all the three sons of the appellant, who are the co-parceners, are entitled to their separate share in the land of the joint Hindu Family property. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the Sub-Divisional Officer recognised the transfers made in favour of appellant's two sons Ishwar Singh and Dungar Singh and the State Government did not raise any objection to these transfers, therefore, the third son Jagmal Singh cannot be denied to have any right in the land held by the appellant. The land being ancestral, Jagmal Singh is, also, entitled to equal share u/R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963. It has, also, been. contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the transfers made by the appellant were made prior to 31.12.1969 and were made to the bonafide agriculturists of Rajasthan for consideration and the Revenue Authorities were, therefore, not justified in not recognising these transfers. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance over : Gopal Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors., 1983 RLW 475 . Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was the Ex-Jagirdar of Daulatgarh Jagir and after the resumption of the Jagir he was given Khud Kasht right with respect to the land in lieu of the Jagir land and as the land was given in lieu of the Jagir, the land should be treated as the ancestral land. In the reply submitted by the appellant to the notice u/R. 14, no such ground was taken by him. The only ground taken by the appellant was that the land was ancestral and his two sons Ishwar Singh and Dungar Singh were not dependant upon him and the land being the ancestral land, Jagmal Singh, being the co-parcener, has equal right in the Hindu Joint Family property u/R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963. The only ground taken by the appellant was that the land was ancestral and his two sons Ishwar Singh and Dungar Singh were not dependant upon him and the land being the ancestral land, Jagmal Singh, being the co-parcener, has equal right in the Hindu Joint Family property u/R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963. It was only the appellant to have shown how this land is an ancestral land. He failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim that the land is an ancestral land and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer, after considering the evidence produced by the appellant, disallowed the contention raised by the appellant and held that the land-holder failed to prove the fact that the land held by him was ancestral and, therefore, R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 is not applicable to him. Thereafter treating Jagmal Singh as one of the members of the family, he determined the ceiling area applicable to the appellant. The Sub-Divisional Officer, also, recognised certain transfers which, according to him, were bonafide and disallowed the remaining transfers which were for inadequate consideration and not to the bonafide agriculturists. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, also, was of the same view that the appellant failed to prove that the land held by him as his ancestral land and, therefore, R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 is not applicable to him. He further held that the transfers made by the land-holder, which were not recognised by the Sub-Divisional Officer, were genuine and were rightly not recognised by him. The Board of Revenue, also, agreed with the view taken by both the lower revenue authorities and dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant- petitioner. Hon'ble the Chief Justice, also, did not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. After going through the evidence available on record, we are, also, of the view that the appellant failed to prove that the land held by him was the ancestral land and when the land held by the appellant was not the ancestral one, R. 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 are not applicable to his case. 6. The judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present controversy. 6. The judgment, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the present controversy. There is no dispute so far as the law laid down in that case is concerned that after the resumption of the Jagir the land held by the Jagirdar is an ancestral land and becomes the joint family's property. But in the absence of any evidence on record to this effect it cannot be said that the land held by the appellant was the same which was held by him as the Jagir land or was the same in which the Khatedari rights accrued to him after the resumption of the Jagir. Since the appellant failed to prove that the land held by him was given to him in lieu of the Jagir land or it was his ancestral land, therefore, the Revenue Authorities as well as Hon'ble the Chief Justice were justified in holding that the land is not the ancestral land of the appellant. 7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the transfers of the land were wrongly not recognised by the Revenue Authorities. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, on this count, is, also, bereft of any substance because the Sub-Divisional Officer has given cogent reasons for refusing the recognition of these transfers. These transfers, which were not recognised by the Sub- Divisional Officer, were made by unregistered sale-deeds for inadequate consideration. Whether the transfers have been made to the bonafide agriculturists or not, has, also, not been proved. The Revenue Authorities, therefore, rightly held that these were not the bonafide transfers and, therefore, cannot be recognised. We see no infirmity in this regard, also, in the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. 8. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compliance of the order dated 1.12.1975 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, has not been made and the Gair Mumkin land like rocks, way and drainage have been included while determining the surplus land. This contention is, also, devoid of any force. 8. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compliance of the order dated 1.12.1975 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, has not been made and the Gair Mumkin land like rocks, way and drainage have been included while determining the surplus land. This contention is, also, devoid of any force. Initially the Sub-Divisional Officer, by its order dated 8.9.1975 declared 229.28 standard acres of the land as the surplus land while at the time of acquiring the land, only 221 standard acres of land has been ordered to be acquired and the remaining land measuring 8.25 standard acres has been left by the Sub-Divisional Officer from resumption. 9. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Special appeal rejected. *******