JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the partied. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Sharma submitted that this case is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the Division Branch Judgment of this Court in case of Durga Devi v. Board of Revenue D.B. Civil Writ petition No. 1492/1995 decided on 13-11-1996 . He submitted that the Addl. Collector committed an error in clubbing the land purchased by the petitioners after the appointed date i.e. 1-4-1966. He submitted that this point was raised in the memo of appeal filed before the Board of Revenue and also argued before the Board of Revenue, but unfortunately the same has not at all been dealt with. Specific contention has been raised to this effect by the petitioners in this writ petition also. 3. However, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Shri Bhati submitted that the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise this contention for the first time before this Court as the same was never raised before the Court below i.e. Board of Revenue. 4. Ordinarily, when the point is not raised before the Courts below then it is not allowed to be raised before this Court for the first time in writ petition, but in this case it appears that though the point was raised and argued, but the same was not at all dealt with by the Board of Revenue. It appears that it has escaped from the notice of the Board of Revenue while deciding the appeal. This point was raised and argued before the Addl. Collector and the same has also been dealt with, but the Addl. Collector was not impressed by the same and decided the same against the petitioners. Though there is an averment made on oath in this petition that this point was raised and argued before the Board of Revenue, that the same was not dealt with by the Board of Revenue is not at all controverted by the other side. 5. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners are permitted to raise the point which goes to the root of the matter. These three petitioners are sons of deceased Sadhu Singh, original assesse. 5. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners are permitted to raise the point which goes to the root of the matter. These three petitioners are sons of deceased Sadhu Singh, original assesse. Sadhu Singh got 49.14 bighas of land from his father Bachan Singh as per the settlement deed out of 98.10 bighas and the rest of land has gone in share of his brother Gurudayal Singh. Deceased Sadhu Singh-original assessee purchased 12.05 bighas of land before the appointed date i.e. 1 -4-1966. Thus, in all he had 61.19 bighas of land on 1-4-1966. Thereafter, on 5-4-68 his adult son Kewal Singh purchased 7 10 bighas, Inder Singh purchased 6.10 bighas of land and Jaswant Singh purchased 5 bighas of land. On 28-6-1974 Jaswant Singh purchased 6.13 bighas more. Thus, in all 25.13 bighas of land was purchased by Sadhu Singh sons which could not have been clubbed with the land of Sadhu Singh by the Addl. Collector as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Durga Devi's case (supra). The Board of Revenue has not at all considered this aspect while deciding the appeal. 6. In view of the above, this petition has to be allowed in terms of the Durga Devi's case and it is accordingly allowed. It is held that the Courts below have wrongly clubbed the land of 25.13 bighas purchased by the three sons of deceased Sahdu Singh-original assessee, which was purchased after the appointed date 1-4-1966. Sadhu Singh had 61.19 bighas of land and he was entitled to hold 46.08 bighas of land, thus, it is held that only 15.11 bighas of land was surplus land of Sadhu Singh and not 41.06 bighas land as held by the Courts below. Surplus land of 15.11 bighas be resumed to the state. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with no costs.Petition allowed. *******