JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition u/Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality of thorders Annexure-8 dated 8.5.1980; Annexure-10 dated 10.9.1990 and Annexure-12 dated 16.8.1994. 2. The case of the petitioners is that deceased Likhma Ram was holding 270.5 bighas of land. He expired somewhere in 1964. He was survived by his three adult sons namely, Ram Chandra, Brij Lal and Harchand; one daughter Kalawati and two widows Smt. Kani and Shanti Devi. The Authorised Officer (Ceiling), Sri Ganganagar by his order Annexure /1 dated 25.5.1990 held that the above land left by Likhmaram could be divided into 5 units consisting of one unit each for Ramchandra, Brij Lal Harchand and Kalawati and one Unit for two widows namely, Smt. Kani and Smt. Shanti Devi and each unit is entitled to 54.1 bighas of land. The Authorised Officer further held that the family of Ramchandra consisted of 6 members and thus, he could keep 54 bighas of land. He further held that the families of Brijlal and Harchand consisted of 3 members each and thus, they could hold 46.5 bighas of land and the remaining 7.16 bighas of land which was found in excess of the ceiling limits was ordered to be acquired. 3. It is relevant to mention here that since at that time, action could not be taken legally for acquiring the excess land, another order (Annexure /2) dated 31.8.1970 was passed by the Authorised Officer. Later on, on a revision petition filed by Harchand and Brijlal, by order Annexure /3 dated 2.12.1970, it was held by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur-II, Jaipur that Brijlal and Harchand had 3 bighas and 10 biswas of 'Gair Mumkin land' each and if this Gair Mumkin land is excluded from 54.1 bighas of land held by them, each of them possessed 50 bighas and 11 biswas of land and after exclusion of 46.5 bighas of land which is admissible to them, there remain 4.6 bighas of fragmented land, which is not liable to be acquired in ceiling proceedings. Hence, the notices issued to Harchand and Brijlal were ordered to be withdrawn. 4. Hence, the notices issued to Harchand and Brijlal were ordered to be withdrawn. 4. It is further relevant to mention here that on the appeal filed by Smt. Kalawati, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur-II, Jaipur vide its order Annexure /3A dated 4.5.1972 held that though the Authorised Officer has held that 54.1 bighas came in share of Smt. Kalawati but in her declaration, only 51 bighas of land is mentioned. Thus, after exclusion of 46.5 bighas of land admissible to her, there remains only 4.13 bighas of fragmented land and, thus, it is not liable to be acquired in ceiling proceedings. Hence, the order of acquisition passed against Smt. Kalawati was set aside. However, in pursuance of the order dated 28.4.1976 passed under section 23 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 [for short 'the Act'] 26.3 bighas of land was acquired and it was allotted to landless persons. The petitioners have filed entries of Jamabandi (Annexures 4, 5, 6 & 7) in respect of such allotment of land found excess in respect of the land left by Likhmaram. 5. However, by order Annexure 8 dated 8.5.1980, the State Govt. in exercise of its powers conferred under section 15(2) of the Act reopened the old ceiling proceedings in respect of the land left by Likhmaram and notices were issued to the legal heirs of Likhmaram. In response to the said notices, the petitioners submitted that 26.3 bighas of land has already been acquired from the legal heirs of Likhmaram and now nothing remains to be acquired. It was also submitted that Ramchandra had two adult sons prior to 1.4.1966 and for this reason, there could not be any surplus land in their hands. It was further contended that a report was also sought from the Tehsildar who also informed vide his report annexure /9 that in the year 1976, 26.3 bighas of land had been acquired from the legal heirs of Likhmaram and it has been allotted to landless persons. However, the Additional Collector (Vigilance) Sri Ganganagar did not consider that report and ultimately, by his order Annexure /10 dated 10.9.1990, he held that 8.12 bighas of land deserves to be acquired from all the five units of late Shri Likhmaram. 6. However, the Additional Collector (Vigilance) Sri Ganganagar did not consider that report and ultimately, by his order Annexure /10 dated 10.9.1990, he held that 8.12 bighas of land deserves to be acquired from all the five units of late Shri Likhmaram. 6. The petitioners then preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the learned Board of Revenue vide its judgment dated 16.8.1994 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. Hence this writ petition by the petitioners. 7. I have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. S.K. Vyas, the learned Additional Govt. Advocate and M/s. N.S. Acharaya and J.L. Purohit the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5. I have very careful gone through the record of the case. 8. It has been contended by Mr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that it is very surprising that the Additional Collector (Vigilance)( Sri Ganganagar as also the learned Board of Revenue both totally ignored the report (Annexure-9) of the Tehsildar as also the copies of the Jamabandis (Annexures 4, 5, 6 & 7) evidencing the fact that 26.3 bighas of land had already been acquired from the legal heirs of Likhmaram and that land was also allotted to landless persons. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders Annexure/8 dated 8.5.1980, Annexure/10 dated 10.9.1990 and Annexure/12 dated 16.8.1994 may be set aside and quashed. 9. The learned Additional Govt. Advocate could not controvert this weighty argument. After perusal of the record of the case, I find substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In his report (Annexure/9), the Tehsildar has already held that 26.3. bighas of land was already acquired from the legal heirs of late Likhamaram and that land has already been allotted to landless persons. The fact regarding allotment of acquired land to landless persons is also fortified from the copies of the Jamabandis (Annexures 4, 5, 6 & 7). It is very regrettable that the Board of Revenue being the highest Court of revenue in the State has lost sight of such an important documents having great material bearing on the fate of the case. I, therefore, hold that 26.3 bighas of land had already been acquired from the legal heirs of late Likharmaram. 10. It is very regrettable that the Board of Revenue being the highest Court of revenue in the State has lost sight of such an important documents having great material bearing on the fate of the case. I, therefore, hold that 26.3 bighas of land had already been acquired from the legal heirs of late Likharmaram. 10. It was next contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that after the death of Likhmaram, two widows namely, Smt. Kani and Smt. Shanti got 27.1 bighas of land each and out of which, two bighas of land was Gair Mumkin land and thus, the land in their hands was less than the land falling within the ambit of ceiling and hence, no land could have been acquired from them. After excluding the land which was ordered to be acquired from each of them and after taking into account the land already acquired from them, I am of the opinion that there remains nothing to be acquired from them. 11. For the above reasons, I accept this writ petition and set aside the orders Annexure/8 dated 5.5.1980, Annexure/10 dated 10.9.1990 and Annexure /12 dated 16.8.1994. 12. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costsPetition allowed. *******