JUDGMENT 1. - The facts as stated by the petitioners in the writ petition are that Shri Jaswant Singh, the father of the petitioner No.1 Shardul Singh was Jagirdar of village Paldi and Kudli. He is said to have settled the petitioner No.1 by giving him 144 Bighas 17 Biswa of land and also wife of the petitioner by awarding her 94 Bigha 5 Biswa of land. Jaswant Singh died on 20.10.1965 and the petitioner No.1 had succeeded his estate. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 had settled the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 on the land for maintenance to the tune of 64 Bighas 6 Biswas and 59 Bighas 9 Biswas in March 1966. Land Ceiling proceedings had started under the old Ceiling Act. Vide Annexure-1 the SDO dropped the proceedings. Wife of the petitioner had sold certain land by registered sale-deed in April 1972. After the enforcement of the New Ceiling Act, 1973 on 1.1.1973, the case of the petitioner was reopened under section 15(2) of the Act and the SDO had dubbed the land of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. SDO had declared 138.50 standard acres of land as surplus vide his order dated 4.12.1975 (Annexure-B). Petitioner No.2 and 3 filed appeal against the said order before the Collector and the Collector vide its order dated 22.6.1976 partly accepted the appeal and had remanded the case to the Authorised Officer with a direction that he should afford fresh opportunity of option to the land holders keeping in view the provisions of Section 16(4) of the Act. The respondent Nos. 5 to 12 had also filed an appeal before the Collector, Tonk against the order Annexure-B. It was held that the transfers made to the respondent Nos. 5 to 12 were not permissible under the law and were not legal. The order was made to acquire 138.50 standard acres of un-encumbered land vide Annexure-D on 11.8.1976. Order Annexure-D was challenged before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal vide order dated 23.2.1981 (Annexure-E). The petitioners Rajendera Singh and Pratap Singh also filed the review petition before the Board of Revenue against the order Annexure-E which was dismissed vide Annexure-I on 25.5.1981. Being aggrieved the petitioner is challenging the respective orders Annexures-B, D, E and I. 2. The petitioners Rajendera Singh and Pratap Singh also filed the review petition before the Board of Revenue against the order Annexure-E which was dismissed vide Annexure-I on 25.5.1981. Being aggrieved the petitioner is challenging the respective orders Annexures-B, D, E and I. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the competent authority had committed an error in dubbing the land held by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 with the land of the petitioner No.1 for the reasons that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were not treated as members of the family. It is stated that even though transfers were made subsequent to the notified date, but it should have been taken into consideration for the reason that there were bonafide transfers. 3. In Annexure-B, the order passed by the SDO, Malpura, it was held that the petitioner and his wife Pushpa Kumari was holding 307 Bighas 16 Biswas of land in village Malpura and Phagi which after conversion comes to 192.50 standard acres. 4. Objections were raised before the SDO, Malpura by the private respondents Ram Chand s/o Ladu, Ratna s/o Ram Karan, Mool Chand s/o Bhura, Kesar etc. etc., wherein it was alleged that the property of the minor son Rajendera Singh had been sold by his mother Pushpa Kumari on 29.4.1972 to different persons by different sale-deeds numbering about 6/7 on 29.4.1972 and 6.2.1973. It was held by the SDO that the transfers are not recognisable under the Act, but are to be ignored even it be made for the welfare of the minor and was not legal for the purpose of determination of ceiling area and thus ceiling area to the extent of 138.50 standard acres was declared to be surplus vide order dated 4.12.1975. 5. Annexure-B was not challenged by the petitioners but was challenged by the so called transferees. Shardul Singh, the khatedar was the party in the appeal. It was the argument of the objector-transferees that the land had been sold to them by the mother Smt. Pushpa Kumari and, therefore, their rights should not be effected. However, the RAA had held that because of the reason that the transfers were made in the period when it could not be recognised and therefore, transfers are not protected under the provisions of the Act. However, the RAA had held that because of the reason that the transfers were made in the period when it could not be recognised and therefore, transfers are not protected under the provisions of the Act. The only relief given to the transferees was that the un-encumbered land was to be surrendered vide its order dated 10.8.1976 (Annexure-D). 6. It seems that neither order Annexure-B nor order Annexure-D was challenged by the Khatedar or his wife, but his sons Rajendra Singh and Pratap Singh the minors, had challenged the order of the Collector dated 11.8.1976 in appeal and a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the minor sons had no locus standi to file the appeal before the Board of Revenue, because of the reason that they were neither concerned, nor were khatedars, nor were parties before the courts in the orders Annexures-B and D. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 23.2.1981 (Annex.E) had observed that in the ceiling case of 10/1975 relating to Shardul Singh, that order was passed on 4.12.1975 for resumption of 138.50 standard acres of land out of 192.50 standard acres of land belonging to Shardul Singh and his wife. It seems that this order was separately challenged by Rajendra Singh and Pratap Singh, two minor sons, but the Collector had dismissed their appeal No.188/76 on 22.6.1976 with the direction that the SDO will take the possession of un-encumbered land only. Another appeal No.97/1976 was filed by Narain Singh etc., the transferees, Annexure-D attached with the writ petition. The Board of Revenue had found that there was no inconsistency what-so-ever in the orders/of the authorities below in both the appeals filed who had ordered that the un-encumbered land shall be taken into possession. It was further observed that the right of appeal does not accrue to Rajendra Singh and Pratap Singh, minor sons of Shardul Singh who were not party in the lower courts. It was further observed that these minors had been appearing in one or the other case, sometime through their mother as natural guardian, and sometime through their father as natural guardian. It was observed that Rajendra Singh and Pratap Singh had no locus standi to file the present appeal before the Board of Revenue. It was further observed that these minors had been appearing in one or the other case, sometime through their mother as natural guardian, and sometime through their father as natural guardian. It was observed that Rajendra Singh and Pratap Singh had no locus standi to file the present appeal before the Board of Revenue. Even on merits so far as the challenging the order of taking the un-encumbered land was concerned, the Board of Revenue had upheld the orders of the court below. The transfers made beyond the provisions of Section 30-D and 30-DD was not held to be recognised transfers. 7. Against the order Annexure-E, a review application was filled on a different cause of action. Review application was dismissed vide Annexure-I on 28.5.1981. It was held by the Board of Revenue that there was no error apparent on the face of record nor any sufficient reasons were available to admit the review petition. 8. With the above-said facts, the writ petitioner Sardul Singh and his sons Rajendra Singh and Pratap Singh had come up for quashing the impugned orders. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that his sons were not dependent upon him and, therefore, could not be treated as members of the family under section 30-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is the further contention that the land given to the wife for maintenance of children could not have been clubbed with that of the petitioner khatedar Sardul Singh and that the transfer by the mother was not barred in relation to the property belonging to the minor children. 10. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in (1) Githa Hariharan & Anr. etc. Vs. Reserve Bank of India & anon. etc. 1999(1) AD (SC) 589 , it was held that the expression 'natural guardian' means father and after him the mother can be natural guardian. 11. Counsel for the petitioner also relies on the decision in the case of (2) Ujjagar Singh (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Collector Bhatinda and another, (1996) 5 SCC 14 , in which case some area was declared as surplus under old ceiling law, however, possession was not taken; it was held that the land had vested in the State. Punjab Reforms Act, 1972 came into force; fresh steps for fixation of ceiling had to be taken. 12. Vs. Collector Bhatinda and another, (1996) 5 SCC 14 , in which case some area was declared as surplus under old ceiling law, however, possession was not taken; it was held that the land had vested in the State. Punjab Reforms Act, 1972 came into force; fresh steps for fixation of ceiling had to be taken. 12. The facts of Ujjagar Singh (supra) are not applicable to the present case. It was a case of Punjab State, but in the present case the land had since been declared surplus and because of the stay orders passed by this court, the petitioners are keeping the possession and they cannot take a benefit of their own doing. 13. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the proceedings are to continue under the old law and for the purpose relies on the decision in the case of (3) Banshidhar & Os. Vs. State, AIR 1977 Raj. 46 . 14. Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act, providing the ceiling of the land holder, prescribes the ceiling area for a family consisting of five or less than five members to be 30 standard acres and in case the members of the family exceeds 5, the ceiling area in relation thereto was to be increased for each additional member by 5 standard acres, so as to, that the total ceiling area applicable to such family does not exceed total 60 standard acres of land, meaning thereby that an individual or a family upto five members were entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land whereas each member of the family over and above was entitled to 5 standard acres of land subject to the total not exceeding 60 standard acres. The 'family' has been defined under Section 30-B i.e. consisting of a husband and wife, their children and grand-children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. The 'family' has been defined under Section 30-B i.e. consisting of a husband and wife, their children and grand-children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. The intention of the legislature was to make a provision of 5 standard acres for each of the family member dependent upon such land holder to the maximum being 30 standard acres over and above the permissible area of the family total being 60 standard acres and if any of the land holder declares that any of his son or any person mentioned in the family is not dependent upon him or is not dependent on the land held by him, he was to be excluded from the definition of 'family', but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that any such non-dependent person was entitled to any extra share in the land holders or can be treated as a separate unit or that such not dependent person can be deemed to have a separate share under the Hindu Law or Coparcenary law under the Ceiling Law. The Succession Act, 1956 has taken care of this aspet in Section 4(2). It is immaterial to say that the land as entered on the notified date was either ancestral or not ancestral. The land of the khatedar was to be determined for the purpose of surplus area irrespective of the fact whether it is ancestral or not. No artificial definition or meaning can be attributed to the definition of family provided under the Act for the purpose of defeating the very purpose of declaration of ceiling. In case of joint Hindu Family property the same principle shall also be applicable. The law of ceiling does not discriminate so far the declaration of ceiling area is concerned between the property held by Hindu joint or otherwise or any other religion or community. The land ceilings were bound to be declared as permissible as provided under section 30-C after taking into the definition of family. 15. After going through the facts of the case laid down, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is to be dismissed. The transfers made after the notified date are to be ignored and had been rightly ignored. It shall make no difference whether the land had been sold by the mother or the father. After going through the facts of the case laid down, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is to be dismissed. The transfers made after the notified date are to be ignored and had been rightly ignored. It shall make no difference whether the land had been sold by the mother or the father. The minor sons have been included in the definition under section 30-B of the Act and the land of the minor sons, wife and the khatedar have to be dubbed together. 16. After going through the facts it is dear that the land holders had not challenged the order Annexure-B before any higher authority, but rather have tried to challenge the order wherein the petitioners have been time and again asked to surrender unencumbered land. If the transfers made by the petitioner are ignored, they are bound to surrender unencumbered land as per law and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authorities below and no interference is called for in the impugned orders.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.Petition Dismissed *******