Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 932 (RAJ)

Man Kanwar v. State of Raj.

2001-05-22

K.S.RATHORE

body2001
Honble RATHORE, J.–Brief facts of the case are that late Thakur Jaswant Singh son of late Thakur Jagannath Singh was the former Jagirdar of Jagir village Soonpa, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer and was the eldest son of late Thakur Jaggannath Singh. The Jagir was resumed in the year 1960 under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 and the rules made thereunder and the lands which were in the khudkasht of the Jagirdar were recorded in his khatedari. The land being ancestral, two brothers of late Thakur Jaswant Singh namely; Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh, were equal co-sharers having 1/3rd share each. (2). Late Thakur Jaswant Singh filed a declaration under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Govt.) Rules, 1963 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri on 14.7.64 showing that he held total 671 bigha and 5 biswas of land. In the earlier Jamabandi of Samvat 2015 to 2018 in the name of Thakur Jaswant Singh, total land was recorded 762 Bigha and 19 Biswas, out of which; 91 bigha and 5 biswas of land was gifted by Thakur Jaswant Singh in favour of respondent No.5 Pratap Singh and 94 bigha and 12 Biswas of land to Shri Vijay Singh (both his brothers) and 161 Bigha 14 biswas of land to his major son Tejpal Singh (now deceased); 105 bigha to Smt. Sugan Kanwar widow of Thakur Jaswant Singh and 162- bigha and 17 biswas of land was gifted to petitioner No.1 Mail Kanwar widow of Tej Pal Singh respectively. These lands were entered in their names vide mutation No.71 dated 1.4.1.962 by the Gram Panchayat, Soonpa. in the declaration submitted on 14.6.64 by late Thakur Singh showed his major son Tejpal Singh, his brother Pratap Singh and their wives along with other persons dependent on him as members of his family. (3). The learned S.D.O., Kekri on 24.3.1969 held that late Thakur Jaswant Singh field 103.60 standard acres of land which was more than 90 acres and in view of the Government order dated 7.6.1968 the land measuring 13.60 standard acres was declared as surplus and the S.D.O. also ordered for resumption of 13.60 standard acres of land. (4). An appeal No.114/1969 was preferred by late Thakur Jaswant Singh against the order dated 24.3.1969 before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.4.71. (4). An appeal No.114/1969 was preferred by late Thakur Jaswant Singh against the order dated 24.3.1969 before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.4.71. Thakur Jaswant Singh died in the year 1971, his widow Sugan Kanwar died in the year 1972 and his son Tejpal Singh died oil 20.4.1973. (5). In the meantime, the State Government re-opened the ceiling case/order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Kekri dated 24.3.1969 under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1971 (sic 1973) and the State Government vide its order dated 11.7.1980 directed the Additional Collector, Ajmer to redecide the ceiling case of late Thakur Jaswant Singh. (6). The petitioners filed reply to the notice issued by the Additional Collector, Ajmer on the grounds that the land in possession of Thakur Jaswant Singh was ancestral and his two brothers Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh had equal rights and excluding the land which was transferred by Thakur Jaswant Singh before 1.4.1966, he did not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit. It was also submitted in the reply dated 7.3.1981 (Annexure VIII) that both Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh were agriculturists by profession and were the residents of Rajasthan and these transfers were also covered by Section 30-DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. (7). The learned Additional Collector, Ajmer vide its order dated 30.1.88 held that Shri Jaswant Singh was only entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land. An appeal was preferred against the order dated 30.1.88 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 30.8.91. A review petition was also, field by the petitioner and the same was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.5.1992. Therefore, the petitioners by way of this writ petition challenged the order of re-opening dated 11.7.80 of the State Government, order of Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 30.1.1988, order dated 21.4.71, of the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue dated 30.8.1998 (sic 30.8.1988?) and that of review dated 6.5.1992. (8). Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that vide order dated 24.3.69, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri after declaring the surplus land only passed the order for resumption of land measuring 13.60 standard acres. (8). Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that vide order dated 24.3.69, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Kekri after declaring the surplus land only passed the order for resumption of land measuring 13.60 standard acres. It was submitted that since the order dated 24.3.69 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer strictly in accordance with the provisions and after consideration of the holding belonging to the petitioner and therefore, this order is not prejudicial to the interests of the State, therefore, the action of the State Government of reopening the ceiling matter is without jurisdiction and there was no occasion for the State Government to invoke the power under Section 15(2) of the Holdings Act. (9). Mr. Goyal submits that because the ceiling case No. 1/1967 was not finally decided by the learned S.D.O. the State Government could-not refer the case to the Additional Collector under Section 15(2) of the Holdings Act and if the State Government found that the order dated 24.3.69 was against the interest of the State Government or was prejudicial to the interest of the State, the Additional Collector could only decide the case in pursuance of the order of the State Government dated 11.7.1980 to the extent of 13.60 standard, acres of land only as the S.D.O. by his order dated 24.3.1969 had not decided the case of Thakur Jaswant Singh on other grounds. Without taking into consideration these facts the order of Additional Collector dated 30.1.1988 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (10). It was also contended that the order dated 11.7.80 passed by the State Government is per se illegal, void and without jurisdiction as it was passed without notice to the petitioners and the legal representatives of late Thakur Jaswant Singh. Mr. Goyal further submits that as the holding belonging to the respondent No.5 Pratap Singh and heirs of Vijay Singh which was entered in the name of Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh before 1.4.1966, and their share in the land could not be clubbed with the land of Thakur Jaswant Singh, the land given to Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh should be excluded for the purpose of deciding the ceiling matter of late Thakur Jaswant Singh. (11). Mr. (11). Mr. Goyal submits that the land being ancestral and joint Hindu family property belonging to Hindu Undivided Family of the Jagirdar and this fact was not disputed by the State. The Khudkasht land which had been entered in the revenue records and which the Jagirdar was allowed to retain on the resumption of his Jagir, and in which he acquired khatedari rights under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on the abolition and resumption of the Jagir. (12). Because since the Jagir was ancestral property and the Jagirdar was holding the Jagir as property of Hindu Undivided Family with a rider that the member of the family could not get partition effected because of the fact that by custom the jagir property was impartiable in nature. Since the Jagir was resumed, the impartiable character of the property was lost and the joint Hindu family property became subject to partition and the khudkasht land held by late Jagirdar Thakur Jaswant Singh was on behalf of and for the benefit of the joint Hindu family, of which he was the Karta of land and although the Jagirdar became Khatedar tenant in respect of the khudkasht land, yet the khatedari rights were held by him on behalf of the joint Hindu family. Even in the notional share i.e. 1/3rd of 762.10 standard acres, half of the share went to his son Tejpal Singh. Thus, late Thakur Jaswant Singh on the resumption of the Jagir land, which was khudkasht land, came to only 127 bighas which was well within the ceiling limit. (13). Mr. Goyal submits that neither the Additional Collector and Board of Revenue for Rajasthan considered the, provisions of Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, and the rules made thereunder as well as the rule of primogeniture by which the land in dispute was. governed, nor did the authorities considered the provisions of Sections 30-D and 30-DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 properly and legally. (14). It was further contended that the proper opportunity to adduce evidence and documents was not given to the petitioners either by the State Government or the Additional Collector and thus the orders passed by them are in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (15). (14). It was further contended that the proper opportunity to adduce evidence and documents was not given to the petitioners either by the State Government or the Additional Collector and thus the orders passed by them are in gross violation of principles of natural justice. (15). Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 to 4 was filed and in their reply they submit that Thakur Jagannath Singh was a former Jagirdar of Jagir village Soonpa but the fact with regard to disputed land being ancestral is to be proved by the petitioners and without which the submissions so made in this regard cannot be taken to be true for any consideration. The Government only initiated on the basis of revenue record and entries made in Jama Bandi in Samvat 2005. (16). Mr. Pareek appearing on behalf of State contended that Thakur Jaswant Singh under the provisions of Old Ceiling Act filed a declaration and mentioned the name of his entire family in the declaration and also mentioned the name in whose favour the transfer was made before the Ceiling Law came into force. Mr. Pareek submits that mere mutation do not confer any right on any person until and unless same are drawn on the basis of document whether it be a transfer deed by way of a gift, relinquishment or any other mode. Mutation so entered by the Panchayat were of no credence and value as there was no basis of the same from which they originate. And, thus, the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue have rightly considered the case of the petitioners and the declaration filed by Thakur Jaswant Singh was not taken to be tree and the names so mentioned in the declaration do not form part of the family and for that reason all the courts below gave out reasons to believe for the wrong declaration filed by the petitioners and thereby rejected the same. (17). Mr. Pareek not disputed the fact that the ceiling matter which was decided under the Old Ceiling Law by the S.D.O. Kekri and the surplus land 13.60 so declared was ordered for resumption vide order dated 24.3.69. Mr. (17). Mr. Pareek not disputed the fact that the ceiling matter which was decided under the Old Ceiling Law by the S.D.O. Kekri and the surplus land 13.60 so declared was ordered for resumption vide order dated 24.3.69. Mr. Pareek further not disputed the fact with regard to re-opening of ceiling case under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 since the petitioners utterly failed to prove the fact that the land belonging to the petitioner is an ancestral land and the learned Additional Collector, rightly observed on the basis of the record and declaration filed by the petitioners giving the position of the family as it existed a on 1.4.66 and gave out that the petitioners do not have more than five members in their family and are entitled to retain only 30 standard acres of land. (18). Mr. Pareek also submits that declaration filed by the petitioners do 9 not fall within the purview of Section 30-B of ()Id Ceiling Act and therefore, the 5 authority rightly declared 60 standard of acres surplus land and the earlier order passed by the S.D.O. dated 24.3.69 was erroneous to the extent of declaring only 13.06 standard acres of land in excess of ceiling area. (19). So far as the fact with regard to the service effected on the heirs of Jagirdar Tejpal Singh is concerned, Mr. Pareek submits that the petitioners were well aware of the re-opening of the proceedings and they could have brought this fact to the notice of the concerned authorities in Tehsil or elsewhere. While on the other side when the case was continuing before the Additional Collector in re-opening proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 no objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the orders passed by the Additional Collector dated 30.1.88 and that of the Board of Revenue dated 30.8.1992 deserves to be sustained. (20). Mr. Pareek also seriously objected the contention of the petitioners that no opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioners and submits that the matter was decided after giving opportunity to them. He submits that there has been no violation of principle of natural justice as evident from the judgments passed by the courts below. (20). Mr. Pareek also seriously objected the contention of the petitioners that no opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioners and submits that the matter was decided after giving opportunity to them. He submits that there has been no violation of principle of natural justice as evident from the judgments passed by the courts below. The State Government has got power to reopen the ceiling case under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 and the State Government vide order dated 11.7.80 removed the error which crept in the order of S.D.O. dated 24.3.69. (21). Respondent No. 5 to 10 also filed reply to the writ petition. Mr.K.K. Mehrishi has represented them. (22). Mr. Mehrishi submits that 90 bigha 5 biswas of land was ordered to be entered in the khatedari in favour of non-petitioner No.5 Pratap Singh vide order dated 1.4.62 and Pratap Singh is independently cultivating the same by his own means separately from other co-sharers since 1.4.62 with which the other co-sharers have no connection whatsoever. Similarly, 94 bigha 12 biswas of land was ordered to be mutated in favour of Vijay Singh on 1.4.62 and since then Vijay Singh and after his death non- petitioners No.6 to 10 have been cultivating t e above land by their own means independently. (23). Mr. Mehrishi submits that only on the pretext of the declaration filed by Thakur Jaswant Singh by which non-petitioner No.5 was shown as dependent on him cannot be a basis for deciding the ceiling matter. After death of former Jagirdar Jagganath Singh the land was entered in the Jagir of Jaswant Singh as Karta and manager of the Joint Hindu Family which continued to be shown in the name of Thakur Jaswant Singh as Karta and Manager of the Joint Hindu Family even after resumption of Jagir by the State Government. Since non-petitioner No.5 Thakur Pratap Singh and his deceased brother Thakur Vijay Singh were co-sharers of deceased Jaswant Singh in the resumed Jagir lands, each co-sharer was cultivating the lands of their share separately and independently. (24). Mr. Mehrishi submits that Thakur Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh at the relevant time had become major and were cultivating the land by their own means and were living separately from their brother Thakur Jaswant Singh and were not in any way dependent on Thakur Jaswant Singh. (24). Mr. Mehrishi submits that Thakur Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh at the relevant time had become major and were cultivating the land by their own means and were living separately from their brother Thakur Jaswant Singh and were not in any way dependent on Thakur Jaswant Singh. It was further contended that non- petitioner No.5 Thakur Pratap Singh and deceased brother Thakur Vijay Singh were co-sharers in the disputed land belonging to deceased Thakur Jaswant Singh, yet no notice of proceeding under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 had been given to the non-petitioner No.5 by the State Government and the order passed by the State Government is against the principles of natural justice. It was mandatory that a notice should have been given to the non-petitioner No.5 also who was a co-sharer with share of Thakur Jaswant Singh. (25). Shri Mehrishi vehemently contended that the land possessed by non-petitioners No.5 to 10 may be ordered not to be clubbed with the land held and possessed by the heirs of Thakur Jaswant Singh and it may be declared that non-petitioners No,5 to 10 are entitled to retain the land held and possessed by them equal to the notional share. (26). To resolve the present controversy, the provisions of Ceiling Law are necessary to examine. Section 30-B of the Old Ceiling Law deals with definition clause. According to Section 30-B (a) `family means a family consisting of a husband and wife, their children and grand-children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. According to 30-B(b) person means, in the case of an individual, shall include the family of.such individual. (27). 30-C reads as under:-``Extent of ceiling area-The ceiling area for a family consisting of five or less than five members shall be thirty standard acres of land: Provided that, where the members of a family exceed five, the ceiling area in relation thereto shall be increased for each additional member by five standard acres, so however that it does not exceed sixty standard acres of land. (28). A bare perusal of the definition of family reveals that the family only consists husband and wife, their children and grand children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. (29). (28). A bare perusal of the definition of family reveals that the family only consists husband and wife, their children and grand children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. (29). Here in the instant case, Thakur Jaswant Singh in his declaration in Form No.4 under Rule 9 of Ceiling Rule 1963 and in Jagir also shown the non-petitioner No.5 and his wife and children as the members of family whereas brother and his wife and children are not included in the definition as a family member. Family only consist of husband and wife and their children and grand children being dependent only on them. Admittedly, Pratap Singhs age was shown as 40 years at the time of declaration submitted by Thakur Jaswant Singh, and the age of wife of Pratap Singh shown as 35. Admittedly, they are not dependent to the Jagirdar Jaswant Singh and they cannot be included and considered as a family member in view of the definition of family. (30). Another relevant provision of Section 30-D which deals with certain transfers not to be recognised for fixing ceiling area under Section 30 C.–(1) For the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under section 30C, any voluntary transfer effected by him on or after the 25th day of February, 1958, otherwise than (i) by way of partition, or (ii) in favour of a person who was landless person before the said date and continued to be so till the date of transfer of the whole or a part of his holding shall be deemed to be a transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of this Chapter and shall not be recognised and taken into consideration and the burden of proving whether any such transfer falls under clause (i) or clause (ii) shall lie on the transferor: (2) Every such transfer as is mentioned in subsection (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force in the whole or in any part of the State he not enforceable as against the State Government in respect of any land forming the subject-matter of such transfer and coming to the State Government under Section 30E. (3) Notwithstanding the provision contained in sub-section (2), the transferee of the land referred to therein shall be entitled to claim from the transferor thereof a refund of the consideration money, if any, paid by him for such land and the amount thereof shall be a charge on the compensation money payable by the state government in respect of such land under Section 34-G. (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to the lawful letting or subletting respectively of khudkasht land of a tenants holding or any part of either. (31). Section 30-DD deals with certain transfers to be recognised Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 30- D, for the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under section 30-C (i) Every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard acres made by a person upto thirty first day of December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan or in favour of his son or brother intending to take to the profession of agriculture and capable of cultivating land personally.and who had attained the age of maturity on or before the said date, and (ii) every transfer to the extent as aforesaid made by a person before the first day of June, 1970 of land comprised in groves or farms of the nature referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of section 30J as it stood prior to the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 and acquired before the first day of May, 1959 in favour of his son or brother fulfilling the conditions mentioned in clause (i) and who attains the (age of maturity) on or before the first of the aforementioned dates, shall also be recognised. (32). In the explanation to Section 30-DD the expression ``agriculturist shall mean a person who earns his livelihood wholly or mainly from agriculture and cultivates land by his own labour or by the labour of any member of his family or alongwith such labour as aforesaid with the help of hired labour or servant on wages payable in cash or in kind and shall include an agricultural labourer and a village artisan. (33). (33). Here, in the instant case, declaration filed by Thakur Jaswant Singh reveals that age of Pratap Singh was shown as 40 years and Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh in their reply categorically stated that they are themselves cultivating the land and -their livelihood wholly based on the agriculture and since they possess the land prior to the ceiling law came into force, this fact should he taken into account at the time of deciding the case of ceiling. (34). Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 which empowers the State Government to reopen the case under Section 15(2) is reproduced as under:- ``15. Power to reopen cases (2) without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final orders passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by Section 40 is in contravention of such repeated provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions: Provided that no such direction shall be issued unless a notice to show cause against the proposed action has been served upon the person concerned. (35). Admittedly, the names of Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh have been shown by Thakur Jaswant Singh in his declaration and they were also shown as major and having co-sharer they are the persons concerned and therefore, notice to show cause should be issued to them also, which is admittedly not issued and without giving opportunity of being heard their land cannot be clubbed with the land of Thakur Jaswant Singh only on the basis of declaration. (36). So far as service upon the petitioners is concerned, notices were earlier issued to them and the service was duly effected on the petitioners and they at.. represented through their counsel as evidence from the perusal of the original record which was placed by Mr. N.L. Pareek. But no notices whatsoever was issued to non-petitioners No. 5 to 10. (37). So far as service upon the petitioners is concerned, notices were earlier issued to them and the service was duly effected on the petitioners and they at.. represented through their counsel as evidence from the perusal of the original record which was placed by Mr. N.L. Pareek. But no notices whatsoever was issued to non-petitioners No. 5 to 10. (37). The petitioners in support of their contention that ancestral property is a joint Hindu Family property, placed reliance on the judgment reported in Anant Kibe and Others vs. Purshottam Rao & Others (1) as under:- ``On a combined reading of Sections 158 (1)(b) and 164, the legal consequence that ensued was that the incident of impartibility and the special made of succession by the rule of primogeniture which were terms of the grant of Inam lands under the Jagir Manual of the Holkar State, -stood extinguished. After the conferment of Bhumiswami rights, the incidents and character of the tenure became transformed and the restrictions placed thereon disappeared, and such lands became capable of being held in joint ownership like any other coparcenary property. It must logically follow that the conferral of bhumiswami rights on the holder for the time being under Section 158(1)(b) of the Code in respect of ancestral inam lands must necessarily ensure, to the benefit of all the members of the joint family. (38). Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case Nagesh Bisto Desai vs. Khando Tirmal Desai (2) as under:- ``The mere fact that an estate is impartible does not make it the separate and exclusive property of the holder; where the property is ancestral and the holder has succeeded to it, it will be part of the joint estate of the undivided family. The grant of watan to the eldest member of a family does not make the watan properties the exclusive property o the person who is the watandar for the time being. (39). The petitioner further relied on the judgment reported in Jugal Kishore & Others vs. S.D.O., Baran & Ors. (3) wherein the word `dependent has been defined and it was held. by the Division Bench as under: ``Merely because a son was minor, he cannot be held to be a member of the family unless a definite finding is there that he was dependent on his father. (3) wherein the word `dependent has been defined and it was held. by the Division Bench as under: ``Merely because a son was minor, he cannot be held to be a member of the family unless a definite finding is there that he was dependent on his father. The Division Bench also held that the "Authorities fell in error in not arriving at finding on question as to whether land was ancestral property and whether co-parceners were entitled for any share in the land which was in the hands of the petitioner and whether minor son was dependent on petitioner and the Division Bench remanded the case to RAA to decide the said questions. (40). Mr. Pareek who is appearing on behalf of the State placed reliance on the judgment reported in Purshottam Das vs. Board of Revenue & Others (4) wherein the Division Bench of this High Court has held as under: - ``On resumption of muafi, assessee became khatedar of his khudkast land by operation of Sections 10 and 23 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms &, Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952-Such land cannot be treated as ancestral land for purposes of claiming a share therein by birth. (41). Mr. Pareek also placed reliance on the case State of U.P. vs. Amar Singh & Others (5) wherein Honble the Supreme Court has held as under:- ``the land held ostensibly in the name of any other person- Burden of proof that the land held by that person in his own right lies on that person-Land alienated by tenure-holder by registered sale deeds in favour of his sons and daughters-in-law (respondents) prior to Amendment Act came into force-Mutation effected on the basis of sale deeds-But father and sons remaining in joint family and cultivating together-Held, case falls under Expl.I to S.5(1)-Burden not discharged by respondents-Mutation would not confer any title to the land-Land ostensibly in the name of sons and daughters-in-law must be taken into account in computing ceiling area of the tenure-holder-ceiling on Land; (B) Tenancy and Land Laws-Generally-Mutation entries-Do not confer title to the land-The title is derived from the sale deed properly stamped and registered. (42). (42). After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and going through the original record and judgments cited before me, I am of the view that the ratio decided by Honble the Division, Bench in the case Jugal Kishore and Others vs. S.D.O. Baran & Others (supra) is applicable to the instant case whereby the Division Bench remanded the case to the RAA. Here, in the instant case also the authority fell in error in not arriving at finding on question as to whether land was ancestral property and whether co-parceners were entitled for any share in the land which was in the hands of the petitioners, and whether minor son was dependent on the petitioners and also whether the land belonging to Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh can be clubbed for the purposes of deciding ceiling matter of the petitioners and it is also not decided whether coparceners Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh were entitled for any share in the land which was in the hands of the petitioners or not. The land belonging to Pratap Singh and Vijay Singh has wrongly been clubbed while determining the ceiling limit. (43). Similar analogy has also been drawn by the Apex Court in the cases (supra). (44). Looking to the facts of the case and orders passed by the courts below, 1 am of the view that the case should be remanded back to the Additional Collector for deciding the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the co-sharers i.e. respondents No.5 to 10 in regard to observations made hereinabove specially the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore (supra). The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The orders passed by the RAA, Additional Collector and Board of Revenue are set aside and the case is remanded back to the Additional Collector, Ajmer for adjudication of the ceiling matter as aforesaid.