JUDGMENT 1. - The authorised officer, S.D.O. Kotputli vide his order dated 22.9.1975 had held that Ram Narain was owning 161 Acres of land in possession including the land held by his wife. The gift made to his daughter in the year 1972 had not been recognised as bonafide. His major son Bhojraj has been taken as a separate unit and, therefore, out of the land possessed by the family of Ram Narain and after leaving the unit for his major son, the authorised officer had ordered that 53 acres of land be acquired whereas the remaining land measuring 108 acres was allowed to be retained by the family of Ram Narain and Bhoj Rajasthan his adult son. The order dated 22.9.1975 was appealed against before the Collector. The appeal was dismissed. A second appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide its order Annexure-3 dated 14.10.1976 had also dismissed the second appeal. 2. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner was not accepted by the Board of Revenue that there was some un-documented family settlement before the crucial date. The Board of Revenue had rightly held that if there had been any division of holding before the prescribed date, that could have been brought on record and the transfer by sale on 28.4.1972 had been rightly not recognised by the courts below for the reason that they were the voluntary transfers after the prescribed date. The Board of Revenue had also held that his one major son Bhojraj had been recognised for holding a separate unit. This request of the khatedar had already been agreed to. The contention of the counsel was rightly rejected to the fact that the land left with Bhojraj should have been taken as one unit. 3. Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 envisages only one unit for every adult son and his family subject to the maximum provided in the Act. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under the definition of 'family', his son Bhojraj is to be taken as a separate family. The contention cannot be accepted. The family as defined u/s.2(f) of the Act reads as under : 'family' shall mean a family consisting of husband, wife and their minor children but excluding married minor daughter.' 4. The counsel for the petitioner submits that under the definition of 'family', his son Bhojraj is to be taken as a separate family. The contention cannot be accepted. The family as defined u/s.2(f) of the Act reads as under : 'family' shall mean a family consisting of husband, wife and their minor children but excluding married minor daughter.' 4. Section 4(1) of the Act provides that where members of the family exceed five, the ceiling area in relation thereto shall be increased by one fifth for each additional member so however that the total ceiling area applicable to such family does not exceed twice the ceiling area applicable to a family consisting of five or less than five members. Section 2(m) of the Act provides a separate unit for adult son. The land which is to be assessed for ceiling is a land belonging to the khatedar and if a khatedar has adult son, one separate unit is to be granted to him as per the definition in Section 2(m). The family as defined means the family consisting of husband, wife and the minor children of the khatedar. The adult son may be entitled to one unit but the benefit which is to be given to the khatedar is not to be showered on the adult son. In my opinion, the finding given by the three courts below vide Annexures 1, 2 and 3 are correct and are not likely to be interfered with and the writ petition has no merit and the same is to be dismissed and is dismissed. 5. Before parting with the judgment, it is my duty to point out that even though in Annexures 1 and 2 the S.D.O. and the Collector had held that any transfer made by way of gift in favour of daughter after the prescribed date is not to be recognised but the Board of Revenue, basing its order Annexure-3 on totally extraneous grounds has recognised the transfer which transfer could not have been recognised at all only because that the transfer was in favour of daughter who had a sick husband. In my opinion, the order of the Board of Revenue in Annexure-3 in this respect could not have been sustained in the eyes of law, had some writ petition been filed by the State of Rajasthan for challenging this part of the order. In my opinion, the order of the Board of Revenue in Annexure-3 in this respect could not have been sustained in the eyes of law, had some writ petition been filed by the State of Rajasthan for challenging this part of the order. The law in this regard is very clear that any transfer made voluntarily for whatever reasons if made subsequent to the prescribed date is not to be recognised and is to be ignored, the transfer cannot be circumvented and could not have been circumvented by the Board of Revenue by saying that in special circumstances the transfer is to be recognised. In my opinion, it was a fit case where the State should have gone in the writ petition or should have filed a counter writ petition to challenge the part of the order in Annexure-3 passed by the Board of Revenue. 6. Even though the order of acquisition had been made in the year 1975 by the SDO vide Annexure-1, but it seems that the land is still in possession of the petitioner and his successors. More that 23 years have passed. This court had granted the stay order on furnishing the security for mense profit . Rs. 100/- per Bigha per agriculture year to the satisfaction of the authorised officer, (SDO, Kotputli) within one month of the date of the order i.e. 7.12.1976 which order was confirmed by this court. The writ petition was lateron dismissed in default in October 1984, but lateron restored. The land is still being utilised by the petitioner and his successors. The respondents shall take immediate steps to retrieve the land as per the law. It is a fit case where the State should also make an enquiry as to why the illegal part of the order of the Board of Revenue where the non-recognisable transfer was ordered to be recognised had not been challenged.With the abovesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. The amount of mense profit as ordered by this court shall be ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.Petition Dismissed with observations. *******