JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders Annexure 2 dated 25-12-1969, Annexure 9 dated 31-3-1987 and Annex. 11 dated 24-8-1987 passed by respondents 1 and 3. 2. The relevant facts are as follows. Late Shri Bhairo Singh, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioners 2 and 3, held 10 bighas of chohi land and 343.01 bighas of barani land in village Banwasa. Tehsil Deedwana. District Nagore. In para 7 of the petition it has been stated that the respective standard acre of 10 bighas of chaho land is equivalent to 1.39 standard acre and 343.01 bighas barani land is equivalent to 45.16 standard acres of land. Thus the total land possessed by Shri Bhairo Singh at the relevant time was 47.09 standard acres. Shri Bhairo Singh was a Jagirdar as he inherited this land from his father late Shri Bhopal Singh. In this way this land was an ancestral one. It is alleged that a partition of the above ancestral agricultural land took place between the petitioner Surendra Singh, his lather and mothers (Smt. Chainkanwar and Smt. Gopalkanwar) petitioners 2 and 3 on 24-9-1974. Proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were taken against Bhairo Singh. Shri Bhario Singh produced and pleaded partition of the above agricultural land between the above members of the family. The Assistant Collector. Deedwana accepted the partition and found no surplus land in the hands of Bhairo Singh vide his order dated 24-9-1974 (Annex. 1), The entire returns were tiled by late Shri Bhairo Singh and the judgment was pronounced on 31-5-1974 by the S.D.O. Deedwana who did not find any excess land. The ceiling proceedings were, therefore, dropped. The certified copy of the order dated 31-5-1975 is marked Annex. 2. However, the State Government in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition to Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 reopened the matter in respect of the land of Shri Bhairo Singh and directed the Additional Collector (Ceiling) to decide the matter afresh. The contractors, in the proceedings pending before the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Nagore examined number of witnesses namely. Bhangwar Singh, Satpal Singh. Kaluram, Mst. The contractors, in the proceedings pending before the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Nagore examined number of witnesses namely. Bhangwar Singh, Satpal Singh. Kaluram, Mst. Gopalkanwar and Surendra Singh in support to their cases. However, the learned A.D.M by brushing aside the above evidence as also the partition that took place between the parties held by his order dated 22-6-1985 that Shri Bhairo Singh was in possession of 17.09 standard acres as surplus land. The copy of above order is marked Annex. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the learned A.D.M. the petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer put the same was rejected vide order dated 31-5-1987 on the ground that Surendra Singh was minor on the relevant date 1-4-1966 and like the land transferred to him was after 31-12-1969, the above transfer could not be recognised. The copy of the order of the Board of Revenue is Ex. 9. Undaunted, the petitioners led a review petition pointing out mistakes to committed by the Board of Revenue but the same was rejected vide order Ext. 11. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the A.D.M. as well as the Board of Revenue fell into an error in not appreciating deposition of law as enunciated by this Court Jaganath v. S.D O., 1985 RLW 557 . The down in Jagannath a case is that a minor having sufficient property fallen to his share an maintain himself out of his own property and in that case he is not dependant on his parents and his share could not be clubbed in his father. This aspect of the matter was examined by the authorities below. Though surendra Singh was minor but the land fallen in his share was sufficient to maintain himself As such notwithstanding his minority, he can be treated to be not dependant on his parent and his share ought not to have been clubbed with the land of his father Bhairo Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the non petitioners has supported the judgments of the A.D.M. and the Board of Revenue on the ground that admittedly Surendra Singh was minor at the relevant time (1-4-1996) and his share was not sufficient to sustain himself financially. 5. Learned counsel for the non petitioners has supported the judgments of the A.D.M. and the Board of Revenue on the ground that admittedly Surendra Singh was minor at the relevant time (1-4-1996) and his share was not sufficient to sustain himself financially. He was, therefore, dependant on h is parents and constituted a family. Thus there was no error in clubbing his share with that of the family. 6. I have considered the rival contentions, in Jagannath v. S.D.O. (supra) the definition "family" was considered and it was held:- "It may be stated that a family may be having ancestral land or may not be having ancestral and In case it has an ancestral land, then the coparceners will have a share in the ancestral land by birth. Even a minor coparcener may have sufficient property then, it can be said that he can maintain himself out of his own property fallen to his share and then, it can be said that he is not dependant on his father. But when he has got share in the ancestral land but his share is insufficient to maintain himself then he could be dependant on his father and his share of the land would be considered along with the land held by his father for the purpose of computing the ceiling area of the family as a unit. It would appear from the above provision that the extent of the land of a coparcener would be deemed to be that share, which would have been allotted to him on the appointed date and it is on that basis the question of dependency it could be found as to whether the coparcener irrespective of being minor or major, is dependant on his parents. 7. Now the question in this case is whether Surendra Singh minor can be treated to be independent as regards his income from the land fallen to his share? Since this matter was not enquired into, a finding cannot be recorded in this writ petition. It would be appropriated to remand the matter to the learned A.D.M. for examining the matter afresh from this angle. 8. Since this matter was not enquired into, a finding cannot be recorded in this writ petition. It would be appropriated to remand the matter to the learned A.D.M. for examining the matter afresh from this angle. 8. For the above reasons, I allow the writ, petition, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the learned A.D.M. for examining whether the share of land coming to Surendra Singh was sufficient to maintain him and can he be treated to be not dependant on his parents in the light of observations made in Jagannath case and then decide the matter afresh. Since the matter is fairly old the learned A.D.M. is directed to finish the above inquiry within a period of six months. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******