JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of the ceiling proceedings which have been taken against the appellants under Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.The facts relevant, which need to be noticed for the present purposes, are that the Additional Collector (Vig.) Sriganganagar by his order dated 24.6.1994 held that the appellant Bahadur Ram is holding 8 Bighas 7 Biswas land in excess of ceiling area which he is entitled to hold under the Act of 1973. This computation was made on the basis that said Bahadur Ram has a total holding of 68 Bighas of land which partly consists of his self-acquired property and partly share of his ancestral property which has devolved on him from his ancesters. It was concluded by the Additional Collector in his order that two major Saheb Ram and Het Ram have interest by birth in the ancestral property held by their father and to the extent the holdings of the Bahadur Ram consist of ancestral property, their respective shares in such ancestral land has to be excluded from the computation of the holding of the said Bahadur Ram. The additional Collector, further held in his order that the ancestral land in the name of Nanda, grand father of Bahadur Ram measured 35 bighas and 15 biswas which on his death devolved on his two sons Jeewan and Bhura in equal shares namely Jeewan and Bhura. Thus Jeevan and Bhura acquired ancestral property to the extent of 19 bighas and 15 biswas each as their share. Bahadur Ram is son of Jeevan and the property devolving on Jeewan passed on to Bahadur Ram. In that view of the matter it was held that out of the total holding 19 bighas 17 biswas was ancestral. Coming to this conclusion, the ancestral land of the holdings of Bahadur Ram was notionally divided into three shares and in this manner by considering the share of each son to be 6 Bighas 12 Biswas, excluded 13 bighas 4 biswas from the total holdings of Bahadur Ram and came to the conclusion that said Bahadur Ram held 54 bighas 15 Biswas of land on the relevant date vig. 1.4.1966. Accordingly, after determining the ceiling area in the case of petitioner Bahadur Ram, he held 8 bighas and 7 biswas land to be in excess of ceiling limit. 2. 1.4.1966. Accordingly, after determining the ceiling area in the case of petitioner Bahadur Ram, he held 8 bighas and 7 biswas land to be in excess of ceiling limit. 2. It has been contended before the learned single judge that there was a computation mistake in calculating the holdings in the hands of Bahadur Ram by way of ancestral property. The court did not countenanced this contention and said that.the arguments raised by the petitioners were in the realm of appreciation of evidence and therefore, would not fall within the purview of a mistake on the face of record and not liable to be interfered with issue of a writ of certiorari. This led to filing of the present appeal. 3. It was contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant on the premise of Annexure-1 that the ancestral land in the hands of Nanda measured 91 Bighas and the share which fall to Bahadur Ram shall measure 45 bighas 10 biswas and not 19 bighas and 15 biswas. The share of ancestral land in the total holdings admitted to have been held by him will come to 45 bighas and 10 biswas. It was contended before us on the basis of Annexure-1 filed alongwith the writ petition that the ancestral land in the hands of Nanda measured 91 bighas in regarding to that the share of the father of the Bahadur Ram would be 45 Bighas 10 Biswas and if 45 Bighas 10 Biswas is considered to be the component of entire holdings held by the appellant Bahadur Ram then after excluding the share out of 45 Bighas 10 Biswas the ancestral land from the entire holdings the total holdings of 68 bighas in the hands of appellant Bahadur Ram, in that event, would be reduced to 38 Bighas only by executing the share of his sons in said ancestral land. In that case he will be having no excess land which could be acquired in the ceiling proceedings. 4. We have examined the contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. In that case he will be having no excess land which could be acquired in the ceiling proceedings. 4. We have examined the contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. Undoubtedly, the arguments are prima facie attractive on looking at Annexure-1 but having close scrutiny of the orders we are of the opinion that on the premise of Annexure-1 the petitioner cannot impugn undertake the order passed by the Board of Revenue under challenge as suffering from an error apparent on the face of record, calling for interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction by issuing a writ of certiorari. 5. Our reasons for stating so are : in the first instance we find that in the order of Additional Collector he refers to a mutation made in the name of Nanda recording the ancestral land in his hand to be 39 bighas 15 Biswas. The Annexure-1 which is submitted alongwith the writ petition petition is not a mutation recorded in the name of Nanda, the grandfather of the appellant No. 1 and great grandfather of the appellant No. 2 but is a mutation ordered in favour of Bahadur and Bhoora Ram stated to be grand son of Nanda. Apparently this is contrary to what has been stated by the Additional Collector colonization. Apparently this is contrary to what has been stated by the Additional Collector colonization. He has only stated in his order as under : " tgkWa rd mijksDr Hkwfe ds tnh tk;nkn gksus dk lEcU/k gS vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd, x, nLrkosth lk{; ds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd mijksDr leLr Hkwfe tnh ugha gksdj 39&15 ch?kk Hkwfe vizkFkhZ ds nknk uUnk ds uke tfj, bUrdky la[;k 40 lEor~ 2001 esa Fkh mDr Hkwfe uUnk dh e`R;q ds ckn mlds nks iq=ksa dk thou o Hkwjk dks cfgLlk cjkcj vFkkZr 19&17 ch?kk izR;sd ds fgLls esa vkbZ bl izdkj vizkFkhZ cgknqj jke ds firk thou ds uke ls 19&17 ch?kk Hkwfe Fkh ftls gh f=d ekuk tkosxk 'ks"k Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa ,slk dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izLrqr ugha gqvk gS fd vk;k Hkwfe vizkFkhZ dks mlds firk vFkok nknk ls izkIr gqbZ gks vr% iw.kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa mDr 19&17 ch?kk Hkwfe tnnh tk;nkn ekuh tkosxh bl 19&17 ch?kk dks vizkFkhZ o mlds nks iq=ksa lkgcjke o galjke esa cjkcj&cjkcj 1@3 fgLlk ds vuqikr esa foHkDr djus ij izR;sd ds fgLlk esa 6&12 ch?kk Hkwfe vkrh gSA bl izdkj dqy Hkwfe rknknh 68 ch?kk esa ls 19&17 ch?kk Hkwfe tnnh tk;nkn dh de djus ij 48&03 ch?kk vizkFkhZ Lo;a dh o 6&12 ch?kk us'kuy 'ks;j dh izkIr gksus ij dqy 54&15 ch?kk Hkwfe /kkj.k esa curh gSA vizkFkhZ ds ifjokj esa 1-4-66 dks eqrkfcd fjiksVZ vizkFkhZ Lo;a 45 o"kZ] c[rkojh iRuh 43 o"kZ] lkgcjke iq= 25 o"kZ] lfgjke iksrk] 1 o"kZ gsrjke iq= 21 o"kZ] dqy ikWap lnL; curs gSaA iq= o/kqvksa dks /kkjk 30 ch ds vuqlkj lhfyax izdj.k ds fy, ifjokj ds lnL; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ ikWap lnL; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ ikWap lnL;ksa ds vk/kkj ij 46&08 ch?kk Hkwfe j[kus dk ik= gS 'ks"k 8&07 ch?kk Hkwfe lhfyax lhek ls vf/kd gSA ftls jkT; fgr esa vf/kxzg.k djus ds vkns'k fn, tkrs gSaA lEcfU/kr rglhynkj dks fy[kk tkos fd vizkFkhZ dks fu;ekuqlkj vksi'ku dk le; fn;k tkdj vf/kxzg.k 'kqnk Hkkj eqDr Hkwfe dk dCtk cgd ljdkj izkIr dj mi ftyk/kh'k o bl dk;kZy; dks lwfpr djsaA " 6. This finding that Nanda had 39 Bighas 15 Biswas land does not appear to have been challenged before the Board of Revenue at all in the appeal. This finding that Nanda had 39 Bighas 15 Biswas land does not appear to have been challenged before the Board of Revenue at all in the appeal. The memo of appeal had not been produced with the petition and from the arguments on behalf of the appellants recorded by the Board of Revenue it gives no clue that as to extent of holdings held by Nanda was ever in dispute before the Board of Revenue. On our requirements, learned counsel for the appellant placed before the court from his record a copy of memo of appeal filed before the Board of Revenue. From the perusal of it we find that the claim before the Board of Revenue was that entire 68 bighas of land was ancestral. From the memo of appeal it appears that there was no dispute about the measurement of the land held by Nanda but what was raised before the Board of Revenue was that the entire land was ancestral and the Additional Collector has committed an error in considering only 39 Bighas 15 Biswas of the land out of the land in question to be ancestral. On that basis the claim had been made for entire land should have been subjected to notional partition amongst three shares and if that would have been done no excess land would have been found in the hands of anyone of claimants. Thus, neither the document Annexure-1 appears to be collated with the document which has been referred to in the order of Additional Collector nor any contention has been raised before the appellate authority. On the contrary the appellant authority was sought to decide that the total holdings of Bahadur Ram was 68 bighas and entire 68 bighas of land was ancestral. Rather it was argued in the first instance that the total holdings of the land ought to have been taken 48 bighas and not 68 bighas merely because that mistake has been committed on account of the applicant being illiterate. 7. Rather it was argued in the first instance that the total holdings of the land ought to have been taken 48 bighas and not 68 bighas merely because that mistake has been committed on account of the applicant being illiterate. 7. Apart from the facts that this contention was not raised and no such attention appears to have been drawn on the basis of such alleged clear mistake, if it was existing on the record, as now sought to be contended by learned counsel for the appellants, it does not stand to reason why any application was not moved before the Additional Collector and why no ground on that account was taken. In fact it was now even disclosed to the court that after dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue the appellants have filed a review application claiming for the first time that the land held by Nanda was 91 Bighas and it has been directly muted in the name of his two grand sons and therefore, 39 bighas has wrongly been taken on account. Nor the order, if any, passed by Board on Review Application has been produced to know the reasons for Board's order. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that any mistake apparent on the face of record was committed by the Board of Revenue when the contention was never raised before it and the fact that whether the document Annexure-1 was produced before the Board of Revenue is itself in doubt.In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was right in not entertaining the writ petition holding that it does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******