JUDGMENT 1. - Proceedings were started under Section 30-C of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the petitioner. By order dated 5.1.1972 the Competent Authority has dropped the proceedings as the petitioner's land was found to be within the ceiling limit. The proceedings were reopened and notice was issued to the petitioner. The Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota has found that the petitioner was holding 106 bigha and 19 biswa on the relevant date i.e. 1.4.1966. The Competent Authority also found that the petitioner's family is consisting of seven members. He has also recorded a finding that the land in question is an ancestral land. According to the Competent Authority the petitioner was entitled to hold 40 standard acres of land. The Competent Authority has held that 106 bigha and 19 biswa is equal to 58.34 standard acres and the petitioner was entitled to hold 40 standard acres of land. 18.34 standard acres of land was declared beyond the ceiling limit and it was directed that proceedings be taken for vesting of that land in the State. While determining the question of extent or ceiling area which the petitioner is entitled to hold, his two sons Ramnarayan and Prithviraj were held to be minors and, therefore, were members of his family. The Competent Authority has also held that because the land falls within the first group of villages in the Chambal command area, the standard laid down by the Government i.e. 22 standard acres is equal to 30 standard acres, will be the measure for ascertaining the petitioner's right to hold the land. In an appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue the order of the Competent Authority was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order the present writ petition is being filed. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the land being admittedly an ancestral property, his two sons Ramnarayan and Prithviraj get share in the property by birth and the question really involved in the case would not be whether his sons Ramnarayan and Prithviraj were minor at the relevant time i.e. 1.4.1966 but whether they were dependent on the holder, and secondly the calculation of standard acres on the basis that the land falls within the Chambal command area, is not correct. On the other hand the learned counsel for State contends that minority of the children itself is a proof of their dependency on the holder of the land and the State Government has fixed up the standard by which the standard acres are to be calculated. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on an authority of the Division Bench of this court reported in 1997 RRD 150 Kesri Lal & others v. State of Rajasthan & others . In support of his submissions wherein it has been held that as per the provisions of Section 30C read with R. 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1%3 the ceiling area is to be computed according to the soil classification recorded in the jamabandi on the appointed date i.e. 1.4.1966 and the land falling in the Chambal command area would not be the criteria for computing standard acres. I am bound by the decision rendered by the Division Bench. 3. Section 30B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 defines "family" according to which the family shall consist of a husband and wife, their children and grand children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. To constitute a member of the family under Section 30B(a) the children and grand children should be dependent on the holder of the land. If the children are dependent on the holder they become members of the family. If the children are not dependent on the holder of the land they would not be members of the family and as such their share in the property cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the land of holder for the purposes of the Ceiling Act. Unfortunately neither the Competent Authority nor the Board of Revenue has recorded any finding as to the dependency of the two sons of petitioner namely Ramnarayan and Prithvi Rajasthan The calculation made for the purpose of finding out the standard acre of land which is held by the holder has been recorded only on the basis of land being falling within the Chambal command area, which is not the correct criteria as laid down in the aforesaid decision. 4. Under these circumstances the only course left is to remit the matter to respondent no.3 for reconsideration of the case in the light of observations made hereinabove. 4. Under these circumstances the only course left is to remit the matter to respondent no.3 for reconsideration of the case in the light of observations made hereinabove. The order of respondent no.3 dated 23.4.1984 and that of the Board of Revenue dated 6.11.1987 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota for fresh consideration of the case. 5. As the matter is pending consideration since long it would be appropriate to direct the legal heirs of original petitioner who have been added as a party after death of the original petitioner, to remain present before the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota for reconsideration of the case afresh on 19.4.1999. The Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law.Petition allowed-case remanded. *******