JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or any other appropriate form for quashing the judgments Ex. 4, Ex. 5 and Ex. 6. 2. It may be stated that the petitioner Buta Singh died on 12-3-1995 and his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition may be recalled as follows. The petitioner was a citizen of India being resident of Surawali, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. At the relevant time the petitioner was having agricultural land as follows:- Nahri 158 Bighas 12 Biswas Barani 5 Bighas 10 Biswas Ghair Mumkin 5 Bighas 12 Biswas 169 Bighas 34 Biswas 3. Out of the above land the petitioner transferred 20 bighas and 10 biswas land to Smt. Kartarkaur and 60 bighas of land to Shri Hakim Singh. Since the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 recognised the transfer made by the petitioner in favour of Smt. Kartarkaur, no dispute regarding this transfer has been raised in this writ petition. Regarding the transfer made in favour of Shri Hakim Singh, the petitioner has averred that he executed an agreement for sale of 60 bighas of land on 25-3-1969 in favour of Shri Hakim Singh for a valuable consideration of Rs. 36,000/-. Out of the above consideration, Rs. 20,000/-were paid to the petitioner at the time of execution of the agreement. The petitioner after receipt of the above part of the consideration transferred the actual possession of the land sold to Shri Hakim Singh simultaneously. Hakim Singh has been cultivating the above land. The copy of the agreement dated 25-3-1969 has been filed and marked Annex. 1. After execution of the above agreement, the transferee Shri Hakim Singh paid Rs. 7,000/- on 30-6-1970 and Rs. 5,000/- on 30-12-1970. Thus in all a payment of Rs. 32,000/- was made to the petitioner. The transferee namely, Shri Hakim Singh did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner did not execute the sale-deed. Thereupon Shri Hakim Singh filed a civil Suit No. 76/71 before the learned Addl. Dist. 7,000/- on 30-6-1970 and Rs. 5,000/- on 30-12-1970. Thus in all a payment of Rs. 32,000/- was made to the petitioner. The transferee namely, Shri Hakim Singh did not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner did not execute the sale-deed. Thereupon Shri Hakim Singh filed a civil Suit No. 76/71 before the learned Addl. Dist. Judge, Sri Ganganagar for specific performance of the above contract and the above suit was decreed on 16-ID-1971 in favour of Shri Hakim Singh and against the petitioner. The copy of the judgment has been marked Annex. 2. In compliance of the above decree for specific performance, the petitioner executed a sale-deed on 10-10-1972 in respect of the above 60 bighas of land in favour of Shri Hakim Singh. 4. The petitioner has stated that the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh recognised both the sales made by the petitioner in favour of Smt. Kartarkaur as well as Shri Hakim Singh vide his order dated 23-4-1974 while deciding the ceiling case of the petitioner. Thus the Assistant Collector or the Authorised Officer did not find any excess land which could be acquired from the petitioner. The copy of the order dated 13-4-1974 has been produced and marked Annex. 3. However, after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Government of Rajasthan under its order No. F.7(600) Revenue/Group-IV/76 dated December 16, 1976 reopened the ceiling case of the petitioner decided earlier under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 under powers vested in it under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act and authorised the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar to inquire into the matter afresh. Accordingly the case was registered and proceedings were initiated. The learned Authorised Officer, under his order dated September 28, 1979, held that the assessee had 169 bighas and 12 biswas of land and that the number of members of his family was 5 and not 7. It was, therefore, ordered to be resumed to the State. The learned Authorised Officer did not recognise the above two aforesaid transfers of land and included them while determining the total land available with the assessee. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide judgment dated April 18,1980. It was, therefore, ordered to be resumed to the State. The learned Authorised Officer did not recognise the above two aforesaid transfers of land and included them while determining the total land available with the assessee. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee-petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was allowed vide judgment dated April 18,1980. The matter was again examined and by the impugned order dated 25-1-1982 the Authorised Officer recognised transfer of 30 bighas and 10 biswas of land in favour of Smt. Kartarkaur. He, however, did not recognise the transfer made by the petitioner in favour of Shri Hakim Singh of 60 bighas of agricultural land on the ground that a decree for specific performance of contract of sale of the above land was only passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganager on 16-10-1971. Hence, the transfer was treated to have been made on the day the sale-deed was registered i.e. 10-10-1972. Since the above transfer was made after 31-12-1969, it could not be recognised. The Authoritised Officer further held that on the appointing date there were 5 members in the family of Shri Buta Singh and he was only entitled to retain 62 bighas 8 biswas of land. He thus held that 91 biswas and 3 biswas of unencumbered land of the petitioner be taken in possession by the Tehsildar. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer and the appeal came to be decided on November 19, 1984. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer, by the above judgment, held that the actual number of family members of the petitioner was 6 and not 5 as held by the Authorised Officer. Hence there was 79 bighas of land in excess of ceiling area and that will vest in the State. Regarding transfer made in favour of Hakim Singh, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue exhaustively dealt the matter with reference to the case law of various High Courts as mentioned at page 6 of the order for determination as to what will be the relevant date of transfer. Regarding transfer made in favour of Hakim Singh, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue exhaustively dealt the matter with reference to the case law of various High Courts as mentioned at page 6 of the order for determination as to what will be the relevant date of transfer. The question for determination was whether the land shall be treated to have been transferred in favour of Shri Hakim Singh when the agreement dated 25-3-1969 was executed or the date when the sale-deed was registered on 10-10-1972 in pursuance of the decree for specific performance granted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganager in favour of Shri Hakim Singh and against the petitioner? It was held that an agreement to sell of an immovable does not, by itself, confer any right, title or interest in the subject matter of the agreement and in case of registration of the sale-deed the title in immovable property shall vest from the date of registration and not from the date of agreement to sell. Besides making reference to other authorities, learned Member of the Board of Revenue referred Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhurangya Coal Company, AIR 1959 SC 254 and Satyabrate Ghosh v. Mugheeram Bangur and Company, AIR 1954 SC 44 . Since these two authorities will be relevant for consideration in this writ, it would be pertinent to take a note of the facts and law laid down in the above rulings. The facts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhurangya Coal Company (supra) were that on March 16, 1946 an agreement to sell was entered into for movable as well immovable properties and on May 17, 1946 a sale-deed was executed and registered in respect of the immovable properties mentioned in Part-I of the agreement. The question arose as to whether under Section 12-B of the Indian Income-tail Act which came into force on 1-4-1946, the assessee was liable to pay tax under the head "capital gains" in respect of any profits or gain arising from the sale, exchange or transfer of capital assets affected after March 31, 1946 and before April 1, 1946. The sale of movable property was complete on 30-3-1946 by delivery of possession. The sale of movable property was complete on 30-3-1946 by delivery of possession. Though the agreement to sell in relation to immovable properties was entered on 16-3-1946, the sale-deed was registered only on 17-5-1946 i.e. after April 1, 1946 when Section 12-B of the Indian Income-tax Act came into force. It was held that so far as the immovable were concerned the title to them passed to the transferee only when the sale-deed was executed on 17-5-1946 and not when the agreement was concluded on 16-3-1946. In Satyabrate's case (supra) while intepreting Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act it has been held that a contract for sale of land does not itself create any interest in the property which is the subject matter of the contract. The obligations of the parties to a contract for sale of land are, therefore, the same as in any other contracts and consequently the doctrine of frustrations applicable to the contracts for sale of land in India. In view of the above matter, the appeal was allowed by the Board of Revenue in part to the extent that the ceiling area of Shri Bute Singh was determined as 74 bighas 10 biswas and 79 bighas of land was ordered to vest in the State. The transfer made in favour of Shri Hakim Singh was not recognised. 5. Before we refer to the rival arguments the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the case as set-up by the petitioner before the Authorised Officer and the Board of Revenue. A perusal of the impugned order of the Authorised Officer dated 25-1-1982 shows that the petitioner defended the transfer made in favour of Hakim Singh on two grounds. Firstly, the agreement in respect of the above transfer was made on 25-3-1969 and a registered sale-deed in respect of the above transferred land was executed by the petitioner in favour of Hakim Singh on 10-10-1972 in pursuance of the decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar. According to the petitioner the transfer in fact took place on 25-3-1969 and not on 10-10-1972 when the agreement to sell was executed. Since this transfer was before the cut off date i.e. 31-12-1969, the transfer could be recognised and secondly, the transfer was made in compliance of the requirements as contained in Section 30-DD of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Since this transfer was before the cut off date i.e. 31-12-1969, the transfer could be recognised and secondly, the transfer was made in compliance of the requirements as contained in Section 30-DD of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The petitioner specifically pleaded that the transferee was a resident of Rajasthan and was an agriculturist by profession. It appears that the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan challenged the transfer only on the ground that the transfer of land in fact took place on the date of registration i.e. on 10-10-1972 and not on 25-3-1969 the date of agreement of sale; hence the transfer was hit by Section 30-DD of the old Ceiling Law. What want to emphasise is that the learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan did not at all challenge before the Authorised Officer that the transferee was not an agriculturist in Rajasthan. Since learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan did not raise this controversy for assailing the transfer, the Authorised Officer was not required to record his finding on the second ground. Hence the order of the learned Authorised Officer did not deal with the second ground at all. The above observations also hold good for the conduct and attitude of the parties before the Board of Revenue. There also the State Government did not assail the transfer on the second ground. The learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan vehemently assailed the above transfer on the first ground namely, that the transfer in favour of Hakim Singh actually took place on 10-10-1972 when the sale-deed was registered and not on 25-3-1969 when the agreement to sell of this land was entered into between the parties. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Authorised Officer (A.D.M.) Sri Ganganagar and the Board of Revenue took an erroneous view of law. The agreement to sell of 60 bighas of land to Hakim Singh was executed between the parties on 25-3-1969 and the sale-deed was executed and registered on 10-10-1972. According to the learned counsel the transfer shall be treated to have been made on 25-3-1969. He derives support from the case Parasnath Chobe v. State of U. P., (1982) 3 SCC 384 . According to the learned counsel the transfer shall be treated to have been made on 25-3-1969. He derives support from the case Parasnath Chobe v. State of U. P., (1982) 3 SCC 384 . The brief facts of the case are that the sale-deed dated March 12,1973 was executed by the appellant in favour of Komal and Munar pursuant to the decree passed by the Civil Court on February 13, 1971 in a suit filed by Komal and Munar for specific performance of an agreement to sell entered into between them and appellant on May 10, 1969. it was held- "the only ground on which the sale was ignored by the authorities and in the High Court was that it was effected subsequent to January 24, 1971. But in taking this view, the authorities as well as the High Court overlooked the fact that the genesis of the sale deed was the agreement dated May 10, 1969 followed by a suit filed in 1970 prior to January 24, 1971". The appeal was, therefore, allowed. It may be stated that Parasnath Chobe's case is on ceiling law U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1970 and has been delivered under Section 5 of the above Act. 8. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners relied on the two Supreme Court Cases- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhurangya Coal Company, AIR 1959 SC 254 and Satabrate Ghosh v. Mugaeram Bangur and Company, AIR 1954 SC 44 which were referred to and relied upon by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel has submitted that in the above two cases the Supreme Court has taken the view that the relevant date will be the execution of registration of sale-deed and not the date of agreement to sell the above land. 9. I have considered the case law cited by both the parties. I have made reference to the two Supreme Court cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner above. I have also referred to Parasnath Chobe's case is on all fours with the facts of the present case. The point for determination in Parasnath Chobe's case was identical to the question arising for determination in this case. I have made reference to the two Supreme Court cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner above. I have also referred to Parasnath Chobe's case is on all fours with the facts of the present case. The point for determination in Parasnath Chobe's case was identical to the question arising for determination in this case. I am, therefore, bound to follow Parasnath Chobe's case in which it has been categorically held that for the purpose of ceiling land, the date of sale, in a case where an agreement to sell has been executed and in non-compliance thereof a suit has been filed and sale-deed was executed in pursuance of the decree for specific performance shall be the date of agreement as the agreement is the genesis of the sale. I am, therefore, disposed to hold that the date of sale shall be 25-3-1969 which was a date earlier than the date fixed for recognising transfer under Section 30-DD of the Old Ceiling Law. Hence the Authorised Officer as well as the Board of Revenue ererroenously included the land comprised in the above sale. It ought to have been excluded from consideration while determining the ceiling area of the petitioner. I have already stated that the State Government assailed this transfer only on the ground that the sale was made on 10-10-1972 when the sale-deed was executed and not on the dele of agreement to sell was entered into between the parties. The petitioner has also pleaded for compliance of the conditions for such transfers as enshrined in Section 30-DD of the Old Ceiling Law. He also produced the voters' list before the Authorised Officer. I have already stated that the State Government did not challenge this point. Hence it was not held against the petitioner either by the Authorised Officer or the Board of Revenue. No other point survives for consideration. 10. I, therefore, allow the petition and set aside the order of the Authorised Officer dated 5-1-1982 and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 19-11-1984. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******