JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.1.2004. 3. The writ petition filed by the present appellant in ceiling proceedings s of Kalyan Singh, since deceased and represented by his heirs and legal representatives, was to challenge the order of the Board or Revenue dated 1.9.2001. The writ petition was filed on 4,6.2003. The learned Single Judge opined that the writ petition is highly belated, and lathes remained unexplained. Consequently the writ petition was dismissed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge in not exercising his discretion and not invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction in the present case. 5. Even on merits, we find no sustainable ground. 6. The ceiling proceedings against Kalyan Singh took place under the Is provisions of chapter 11113 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Old Ceiling Law) and it was found that Kalyan Singh did not hold any surplus land in excess of ceiling limit and thus, the proceedings initiated against him were dropped. However, by the order of the State Government under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, the proceedings were reopened. 7. On reopening, in the first instance, it was found that Kalyan Singh was entitled to hold land of 37 acres only as on 1.4.1966 and therefore, his surplus land was sought to be acquired. However, on appeal, the case was remanded. During that proceedings, it transpired that the holder Ram Singh had expired before 1.4.1966 leaving behind his two sons including Kalyan Singh, two daughters and his widow his heirs and legal representatives. 8. However, when it was found that subsequently Bhanwar Kanwar had 1 d ed, her share was also clubbed with the share of Kalyan Singh and he was found to be in possession of this land. This led to filing of the appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue found that subsequent death of Bhanwar Kanwar after 1.4.1966 cannot effect determination of ceiling under s chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955 as on 1.4.1966. Her share from her husband cannot be clubbed with holding of her son Kalyan Singh as on 1.4.1966. This led to filing of the appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue found that subsequent death of Bhanwar Kanwar after 1.4.1966 cannot effect determination of ceiling under s chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955 as on 1.4.1966. Her share from her husband cannot be clubbed with holding of her son Kalyan Singh as on 1.4.1966. It was also found by the Revenue Board that Bhanwar Kanwar was holding laid in her own right and was not dependent on Kalyan Singh because the laid was standing in her own right and, therefore, the clubbing of her land to the Kalyan Singh's share was not permissible. 9. We, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, find no infirmity in the it impugned order. Under Chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955, a widowed mother is to be considered as member of the family for the purpose of ceiling only if she is dependent on her son. In the present case, it cannot be said that widowed mother was dependent on Kalyan Singh. We have already noticed that Ram Singh died before 1.4.1966 leaving behind two sons, two married daughters and widow and his interest on his death devolved on the said five heirs in equal shares, independent of each other in view of clear provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which governs the succession of Hindu male dying intestate. 10. Widow of Ram Singh was adult and she was holding land in her right as on 1.4.1966 when the case of her son Kalyan Singh was being considered. There is no presumption in law that widowed mother holding land in-independently is dependent on her son. No evidence was led to prove that the widow of Ram Singh was dependent on her son. It is also not discernible when Ram Singh had left behind two sons, two married daughters and widow could be treated dependent on Kalyan Singh one of the legal heirs like her to the exclusion of her other son or other heirs of her husband. 11. In view thereof, the clubbing of share of Bhanwar Kanwar widow of Ram Singh was apparently erroneous and that mistake has been set at light by the Board of Revenue. 12. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******