JUDGMENT 1. - The substituted present appellants are the legal representatives of the original appellant, Baldev, who has expired during the pendency of this appeal and who was holding the lands in question on the appointed date 1.4.1966. 2. On the enforcement of Chapter Ill-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (herein-after referred to as `the Old Ceiling Law') the original appellant filed a return in respect of his 77 bighas and 19 biswas of land which he was holding in village Richahedi, Jiyahedi and Surela of Tehsil Digod, District Kota, which were in Group 2 under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Ceiling Rules'). The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota, vide his order dated 31.3.1975 computed the land equivalent to 17.49 standard acres while the ceiling limit was 30 standard acre and as such dropped the proceedings. 3. Thereafter the new ceiling law contained in the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Ceiling Law') came into being. Under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Law, the State Government ordered the case of the original appellant to be reopened and re-decided after providing the opportunity of hearing to him in accordance with the repealed Old Ceiling Law and Old Ceiling Rules. Thereupon, the Additional Collector (Colonisation), Kota, after notice to the original appellant vide his order dated 17.9.1981 held that as the total holding was in the Chambal Command area, though the aforesaid villages fell in Group 2 and as such the holding was equivalent to 35.86 standard acres, treating five members in the family he declared 5.86 standard acres as surplus land and directed it to be acquired. The proceedings before the Additional Collector (Colonisation), were exparte against the original appellant. Then the matter was carried in appeal before the learned Board of Revenue which by its order dated 14.5.1982 dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the review application filed by the original appellant was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The original appellant then approached the High Court by way of writ.petition No. 405/83 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 5.4.1983. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides. 5. The original appellant then approached the High Court by way of writ.petition No. 405/83 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 5.4.1983. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides. 5. Both the sides have admitted that the Full Bench ruling of this Court has ruled that the proceedings initiated under the Old Ceiling Law and the Old Ceiling Rules must be completed thereunder and not under the New Ceiling Law and that the Old ceiling Law and the Old Ceiling Rules would govern this matter in hand. 6. The contention of the original appellant has been that the extent of ceiling area is to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 30-C of the Old Ceiling Law read with rule 19 of the Old Ceiling Rules under which ceiling groups have been formed on the basis of soil classification of the land recorded in the revenue records and, therefore, the standard acres were to be computed on the basis of soil classification as recorded in the Revenue Records on the appointed date 1.4.1966. According to the appellant, all the lands held by him on the appointed date were classified as Barani-II, Mal-II and Barani-I and Mal II. To support this contention, entries in the Jamabandis were filed as Annexures 'K', 'L' and 'M' along with the writ petition. The Additional Collector has held that the villages wherein the lands of the appellant are situated fall in Group-II. Thus, as per the appellant, none of the lands held by him fall under item No. 1 of the appendix I attached to the Old Ceiling Rules. The Additional Collector (Colonisation) and the learned member, Board of Revenue, without going into all these, have simply held that as the lands in question are situated in the Chambal Command area, the entire holding of the original appellant is irrigated one and computed the ceiling area accordingly. 7. The Additional Collector (Colonisation) and the learned member, Board of Revenue, without going into all these, have simply held that as the lands in question are situated in the Chambal Command area, the entire holding of the original appellant is irrigated one and computed the ceiling area accordingly. 7. Apart from this, the learned member, Board of Revenue without examing the contention of the appellant that his adult son living separately should have been treated as separate unit has held that the family of the original appellant consisted of five members.Section 30-B (a) defines the family as under : " 'family' shall mean a family consisting of a husband and wife, their children and grand-children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent." Evidently the size of the family is not so important as is the question of dependency of children on their parents. Even assuming that the family of the original appellant consisted of five members, the definition of family under section 30-B of the Old Ceiling Law calls for determination of the question as to whether the son/sons of the original appellant were dependent upon the original appellant or whether the son/sons constituted apart of the family of the original appellant. The dependency is a question of fact in each case and it is on the basis of evidence a finding is to be arrived at as to whether the children are dependent on their parents. 8. Under the Old Ceiling Law, a son, whether minor or major, can be treated as a member of family only if he is dependent. Crucial question is not whether the son is a minor or major, but whether he is dependent on his parents or not. The question of dependency has not been gone into by the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue while deciding the ceiling case of the original appellant. 9. As per the decision dated 18.3.1985 of the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 61/85, State of Rajasthan v. Bhoj Raj and Others , the matter requires to be remanded for a fresh decision in the light of the aforesaid provisions of the Old Ceiling Law and the Old Ceiling Rules after giving notice to all concerned. It seems that this aspect of the matter also escaped the consideration of the learned Single Judge. 10. It seems that this aspect of the matter also escaped the consideration of the learned Single Judge. 10. In the result, this special appeal is allowed. The order dated 5.4.1983 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order dated 14.5.1982 of the Board of Revenue and the order dated 17.9.1981 of the Aditional Collector (Colonisation), are also set aside. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector (Colonisation), Kota, for a fresh decision in the light of the provisions of Old Ceiling Law and the Old Ceiling Rules after giving notice to all concerned. Let status quo as to existing possession as on today be maintained till a final decision is reached. There shall be no order as to costs.Special Appeal Allowed - Case Remanded. *******