( 1 ) BHANI Singh filed his return on 29/9/1965 under sub-Sec. (2) of section 30-E of Chapter III-B introduced in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by Act 4 of 1960, giving out details of the lands in his possession. He also gave details of the land which he had already transferred to various persons. While the proceedings were pending, Sec. 30-DD was inserted in the rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by Rajasthan Act 15 of 1970 with effect from 18/8/1970 providing that transfers made by a landholder up to 31/12/1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan shall be recognised for the purpose of determination of ceiling area applicable to a landholder. ( 2 ) TAKING advantage of the amendment introduced in the Act, Bhani singh claimed exclusions of the land covered by the transfers made by him on 3/10/1963 in favour of Respondents 5 to 9. While the matter was pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhani Singh died. But the proceedings continued and the Sub-Divisional Officer passed a final order on 6/9/1975 by which the ceiling area applicable to Bhani Singh was determined. ( 3 ) IT is not disputed before us that the heirs of Bhani Singh were not brought on record and notice of the proceedings was also not issued to them. It is also not disputed that notice of the proceedings was not issued to respondents 5 to 9, in whose favour Bhani Singh had already transferred a substantial portion of the land by sale deed dated 3/10/1963. Unfortunately, in spite of this defect in the proceedings, an order passed by the Sub- divisional Officer was affirmed by all other authorities with the modification by the High Court that the land which was the subject-matter of transfer would not be surrendered as surplus land and the same surplus land would be taken out of the land already in possession of the heirs of Bhani Singh. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants who are the legal representatives of Bhani Singh has contended that on the death of Bhani singh in 1975, the State was under an obligation to bring on record all the heirs of Bhani Singh. This, we feel, is correct. The Sub-Divisional Officer could not have legally proceeded with the case without issuing notice to the heirs who are before us as appellants in this case. This, we feel, is correct. The Sub-Divisional Officer could not have legally proceeded with the case without issuing notice to the heirs who are before us as appellants in this case. Moreover, since exemption was claimed by Bhani Singh in respect of the land which had already been transferred by him in favour of Respondents 5 to 9 by sale deed dated 3/10/ 1963, notice should also have been issued to the transferees before determining their status as to whether they were domiciled in Rajasthan or not and whether the land covered by the sale deed could have been offered as surplus land by the original landholder. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The orders passed by all the authorities below including the original order passed by the Sub- divisional Officer are set aside. The case is remanded to the Sub-Divisional officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 15/2/2000. There will be no order as to costs.