JUDGMENT 1. - Facts and the question of law involved in these cases are common and, therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by common order. 2. A ceiling case started under the old law (Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) against the petitioners was dropped by the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Sawaimadhopur dated 1.5.1971. Thereafter the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (new ceiling Act) came into force with effect from 1.1.1973 and proceedings were initiated against the petitioners which were later on dropped on 31.3.1975. The State Government again took up the matter under Section 15(2) of the new ceiling Act. The Additional Collector Sawaimadhopur held vide order dated 29.12.1980 that the petitioners are in possession of an area of land which is more than the ceiling area prescribed under the Act and declared certain land to be surplus. That order was maintained vide order dated 4.8.1981 by the Board of Revenue in appeal preferred by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order of the Board of Revenue these writ petitions have been filed. 3. The admitted facts as given in paragraph no.6 of the order of the Board of Revenue are that one Chittar was owner of the land in question i.e. 145 standard acres situated at Mallanar Dunger (Sawaimadhopur). He died in 1946 and the land fell in share of his three sons Gendiya, Sheo Narain and Phoolchand (the petitioners). On the relevant date i.e. 1.4.1966 when the old ceiling Act came into force, Gendiya had one major son Radhey Shyam and one minor son Bal Kishan besides his wife, Sheo Narain had two major sons Laxmi Narain and Ram Narain besides his wife, and Phoolchand had one major son Moolchand besides his wife. In a return submitted before the Competent Authority it has has been admitted that minor members of the family are dependent on the holder who has submitted the return. However it has been specifically alleged that the major sons were not dependent on their father. Admittedly the petitioners are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. After the death of Chittar in the year 1946 the property came into the hands of petitioners as ancestral property. It is now a settled law that in an ancestral property governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, sons and grand-sons have right by birth. Admittedly the petitioners are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. After the death of Chittar in the year 1946 the property came into the hands of petitioners as ancestral property. It is now a settled law that in an ancestral property governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, sons and grand-sons have right by birth. Thus all the sons of the petitioners who were alive at the relevant date i.e. 1.4.1966 and not dependent on the holder had their independent right, title and interest in the property i.e. 145 standard acres of land. The petitioners will each have one-third share in the property left by their father Chittar i.e. 48.33 standard acres of land. In the said property in regard to Gendiya his son Radhey Shyam along with Bal Kishan (minor son) will have one-third share each i.e. 16.11 standard acres. According to the definition of "family" as given under Section 30-B(a), the minor son being dependent on father, the interest in property of Bal Kishan, shall club together with his father, which will be 32.22 standard acres. The family of Gendiya shall be entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land as prescribed under the Act and thus Gendiya has 2.22 standard acres excess land in his hand. 4. So far as Sheo Narain is concerned his family holds 48.33 standard acres of land. Laxmi Narain, Ram Narain (his major sons) and Sheo Narain himself will have one-third share which comes to 16.11 standard acres each. Each of them does not hold any land in excess of the ceiling area permissible under the Act which is 30 standard acres for a family and, therefore, no land held by Sheo Narain and his major sons is liable to be vested in the State. 5. As regards Phoolchand, he has one major son. Thus each of them will have half share in 48.33 standard acres i.e. 24.16 standard acres of land which is not in excess of the ceiling area prescribed under the Ceiling Act and thus no land of Phoolchand and Moolchand shall vest in the State. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petitions are allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4.8.1981 is set aside except 2.22 standard acres of land in the matter of Gendiya. 7. 6. In view of the aforesaid, the petitions are allowed and the order of the Board of Revenue dated 4.8.1981 is set aside except 2.22 standard acres of land in the matter of Gendiya. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that under Section 30-I(2) of the Old Ceiling Law, 2.22 standard acres of land being a fragment of the land to be acquired, the holder is entitled to retain it wherein it has been provided that in cases covered under clause (a) or clause (b) sub-section (1) of Section 30-E the land in excess of the ceiling area applicable thereto is only a fragment, the Sub Divisional Officer may allow the person holding it to retain the possession thereof unless such fragment can be utilised for consolidation of a holding contiguous smaller in size than the ceiling area applicable to such holding. It is for the Sub Divisional Officer to find out and allow a person to retain the fragment of the holding if the position contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 30-I is present, which would require an independent investigation by the Sub Divisional Officer. It shall be open to the petitioner Gendiya to approach the Sub Divisional Officer for grant of permission to retain the possession of 2.22 standard acres of land.The petitions are disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******