Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the application. 2. The application has been moved on behalf of four persons viz. Shambhulal, Gopal, Bhanwar Lal and Chothu Mali, to be impleaded as party - respondent in this appeal. 3. The applicants claimed to be transferee of the land in question which was subject matter of Ceiling proceedings. The land has been found to be surplus in the hands of Chandraveer Singh -appellant. The transfers made by the land owner after a particular date are not to be recognised for the purpose of ceiling proceedings but are to be included in computation of the land holdings as on relevant date. Therefore, the alleged transfers in favour of the applicants vide the document dated 112.1997, during pendency of this appeal, cannot effect the computation of holding of appellant Chandraveer Singh as on the relevant date i.e., on 01.01.1973 or under the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which the relevant date is 01.04.1966. The holder of the land on the relevant date is entitled to retain only lesser quantity of the land permissible to be held by it on either of the dates. Transferees of land prior to relevant date are not entitled to hearing in ceiling proceedings meant for total holdings of a person/family on the relevant date. A subsequent transferee of land, therefore, has also no right to carry on or take on the litigation from the holder for its continuance. 4. Since, the petitioner appellant has transferred the disputed land during the pendency of this lis, he is also not entitled to take the advantage or claim the benefit of the transfer for considering the same to be an encumbered land. Since, by the alleged transfer, the rights of the petitioner appellant are not affected, the transferee does not get a right to be substituted as the holder of the land to carry on the proceedings in the name of Chandraveer Singh, the applicants cannot be permitted to be impleaded as party. The application is, therefore, rejected. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the case. 6. The petitioner was subjected to the proceedings under Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 in respect of his holdings as on 01.01.1973. The application is, therefore, rejected. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merits of the case. 6. The petitioner was subjected to the proceedings under Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 in respect of his holdings as on 01.01.1973. The said proceedings culminated in order dated 31.05.1978, which was made by competent officer, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara. The return was submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.1975. 7. As per the order dated 13.05.1978, in response to notice issued to him, the petitioner had submitted that he and his wife holds in all 227 bighas and 3 biswas of land, out of which, 31 bighas and 7 biswas of land were acquired under the Old Ceiling law under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and 35 bighas of land have been transferred by him. In this manner, at the relevant date, he was holding only 160 bighas and 16 biswas of land. He had 7 members in his family, which made him entitled to hold 165 bighas of land, therefore, he did not hold land in excess of Ceiling limit applicable to him. 8. The competent officer did not accept the contention of the petitioner about the transfers of 35 bighas of land made by him and the same were not recognised for the purposes of ceiling proceedings in its order dated 31.05.1978. As a result of non-recognition of said transfer, as per the petitioners own admission, remaining 195 bighas and 3 biswas of land, was in excess of ceiling limit applicable to him. The competent officer did not give effect to his order as per above finding. 9. Instead, the competent officer noticed proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the case of Keshar Singh father of present petitioner. In the said ceiling case, which was decided on 110.1971, before commencement of the Act of 1973, transfer of 45.55 standard acres made by erstwhile holder Shri Keshar Singh were held to be valid and recognisable. The remaining 66.72 standard acres of land was found to be land held by said Shri Keshar Singh. Considering Keshar Singh was entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land, the remaining 36.72 standard acres of land was declared surplus, which was ultimately reduced to 29.89 standard acres. The remaining 66.72 standard acres of land was found to be land held by said Shri Keshar Singh. Considering Keshar Singh was entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land, the remaining 36.72 standard acres of land was declared surplus, which was ultimately reduced to 29.89 standard acres. According to the findings in Keshar Singhs case, 102 bighas and 16 biswas of land was acquired as surplus lands of Keshar Singh. 10. As per computation, which has come on record, after allowing the recognised transfers and acquisition of surplus lands, Keshar Singh remained holder of 105 bighas and 18 biswas of land say 106 bighas of land, which became subject of inheritance on death of Keshar Singh. Keshar Singh had died prior to coming into force of Act of 1973. His widow Chand Kanwar and son Chandraveer Singh was his only heirs. 11. Considering these facts, the competent officer further held that this would make two separate units for the purpose of ceiling; one of Chand Kanwar and another of Chandraveer Singh; both of them would be entitled to hold 48 acres of land, that is to say total 96 Acres or 240 bighas of land. While granting two separate units independently, entitled to hold conjointly 240 bighas of land, inexplicably, he further held that since Chandraveer Singh held only 195 bighas 16 biswas, which was less than the maximum area that could be held by two units, he dropped the proceedings. 12.Obviously, it suffered from apparent mistake that if Chand Kanwar and Chandraveer Singh to constitute two independent units, the total holdings held by the two units must also have been taken into account, conjointly by including lands held by Chand Kanwar, whether independently or as heir of Keshar Singh. If only Chandraveers unit was to be considered, his holdings as per his own finding, was more than 48 Acres or 120 bighas. If the two units were to be considered, then land held by members constituting two units must have been clubbed. That would have brought into reckoning, whatever be claimed for inheritance of Keshar Singh may be, as total lands held by two units who were jointly held to be entitled to 48 Acres each in 96 Acres jointly. 13. If the two units were to be considered, then land held by members constituting two units must have been clubbed. That would have brought into reckoning, whatever be claimed for inheritance of Keshar Singh may be, as total lands held by two units who were jointly held to be entitled to 48 Acres each in 96 Acres jointly. 13. If the two unit theory is not accepted and only the holdings of Chandraveer Singh or his wife was to be considered, then too the order dated 31.05.1978 was suffering from apparent error in as much as the competent officer having not recognised the transfer of 35 bighas of land, the total holdings after excluding 31 bighas 7 biswas of land from total admitted holdings, the petitioner held 195 bighas 6 biswas of land whereas according to petitioner himself , he was entitled to only 160 bighas 6 biswas. 14. As noticed above, on 06.01.1996, 160 bighas and 3 biswas of land calculated as per the order dated 31.05.1978 comes after excluding only 31 bighas and 6 biswas of land acquired as surplus under the Old Ceiling proceedings and by not recognising 35 bighas of land from transfer by the petitioner. This figure did not take into account the property of Keshar Singh, succession to which had opened prior to the commencement of the Act of 1973, and of whom Smt. Chand Kanwar (Jodhpuri) and petitioner Chandraveer Singh were the only intestate heirs of Class-I. 15. From this order, it is also apparent that the total land held by Keshar Singh included the land held by his widow Chand Kanwar also while determining the case of Keshar Singh under Chapter III-B of the Act of 1955, who inter alia was held entitled to 48 Acres of land by considering as a separate unit. In considering separate unit of Chand Kanwar, if lands held by Chandraveer Singh were to be considered, lands held by Chand Kanwar, whether in her own right or as an heir of Keshar Singh could not have been excluded from the total holdings in the name of both the units, for finding out surplus land. 16. In considering separate unit of Chand Kanwar, if lands held by Chandraveer Singh were to be considered, lands held by Chand Kanwar, whether in her own right or as an heir of Keshar Singh could not have been excluded from the total holdings in the name of both the units, for finding out surplus land. 16. It appears that some time thereafter notices were issued to Chandraveer Singh and Smt. Chand Kanwar widow of Keshar Singh and Smt. Meena Kanwar w/o Chandraveer Singh purporting to be under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceilling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, with reference to reopen the order dated 31.05.1978 dropping proceedings against Chandraveer Singh and the persons constitution his family under the Act of 1973. The show cause notice which was received by the petitioner has not been placed on record. However, the order purported to have been placed passed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 for reopening ceiling proceedings clearly referring to two proceedings - Ceiling Case No. 67/1975 and Ceiling Case No. 13/1971. It refers in the title to Þizkf/kr vf/kdkjh ek.Myx<dk fu.kZ ; 31.05.1978”. The order dated 31.05.1978 was passed only in the + case of Chandraveer Singh under the New Ceiling Act. The opening part of the order also reads as under:- ÞrRdkyhu ikfz/kr vf/kdkjh ek.Myx<+ us fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks vizkFkhZ ds }kjk /kkj.k dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dks iqjkus lhfyax dkuwu }kjk fu/kkZfjr lhek ls vf /kd ugha gksuk ekudj muds le{k py jgh dk;Zokgh dks lekIr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k fnukad 31-05-1978 dks fn;s FksA rnqijkUr jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku es yk;k x;k fd rRdkyhu ikfz/k-r vf/kdkjh dk mijksDr fu.kZ; lhfyax dkuwu ds foijhr vkSj jkT; fgr ds izfrdwy FkkAß 17. This preface also refer to erroneous nature of order dated 31.05.1978, which was prejudicial to interest of State. There was only one order dated 31.05.1978 that was about dropping the proceedings in the case of Chandraveer Singh, case No. 67/75. Obviously reference to Sub-section (2) was only an inadvertent mistake. But notice was unmistakably issued to reopen the ceiling case No. 67/75. The case of the petitioner was decided on 31.05.1978 under the Act of 1973. 18. The petitioner had not replied to this notice nor he had appeared before the competent officer. Obviously reference to Sub-section (2) was only an inadvertent mistake. But notice was unmistakably issued to reopen the ceiling case No. 67/75. The case of the petitioner was decided on 31.05.1978 under the Act of 1973. 18. The petitioner had not replied to this notice nor he had appeared before the competent officer. Considering the case vide order dated 23.05.1983, the State Government directed to re-open the case of the petitioner, inter alia on the ground that after determination of ceiling case of Keshar Singh, 110 bighas and 15 biswas of land remained in the account of Keshar Singh, succession to which has not been taken into account, which vested in Chandraveer Singh and his mother in moiety and, therefore, in computing the holdings of Chandraveer Singh, the holding acquired by him per inheritance from his father Keshar Singh had not been taken into account. If the said land is included in his account, about 170 bighas of land remained surplus, which remained to be acquired. Therefore, the order passed on 31.05.1978 dropping the ceiling proceedings in the case of Chandraveer Singh and his mother was held to be erroneous. 19. Obviously, for the purpose reference to ceiling case of petitioners father Keshar Singh was made in detail only to give out that land which ultimately remained in the hands of Keshar Singh had become subject of inheritance before commencement of Act of 1973, and effect of this has not been considered in deciding the case of Chandraveer Singh. 20. Pursuant to these directions, the proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner, his mother and his wife. In response to initiation of new proceedings, the petitioner again submitted return and took the same plea as originally taken before the competent officer in proceedings which were dropped by order dated 31.05.1978 namely that he and his wife held 227 bighas and 3 biswas of land, out of which 31 bighas and 7 biswas of land have been acquired under the old ceiling law and 35 bighas of land has been sold by him, leaving only 160 bighas and 13 biswas of land with the seven family members. Hence, he is entitled to hold 165 bighas of land, as against 160 bighas 16 biswas of land held by him, therefore, his case is not affected by the ceiling limit. 21. Hence, he is entitled to hold 165 bighas of land, as against 160 bighas 16 biswas of land held by him, therefore, his case is not affected by the ceiling limit. 21. The competent officer did not give any finding as to the recognition of transfers made by him or the additional land acquired by Chandraveer Singh considering the question whether Chandraveer Singh has received any property or any land from the holdings of Keshar Singh in succession and if so up to what extent. He finally determined the holdings of Keshar Singh which remained with him after acquisition of surplus land under proceedings held in his case under Tenancy Act. Such land was found to be about 106 bighas with two heirs (Chandraveer Singh and Chand Kanwar). The said land would be divided equally between them. Thus, in total 227 bighas and 3 biswas of land held by the petitioner and his wife, 53 bighas of land were to be included as acquired by him on succession. On that basis 45 acres of land were held to be surplus in the hands of the petitioner. 22. In appeal, though number of grounds were taken by the petitioner including challenging the re-opening of the petitioners case under Section 15(2) of the Act, inter alia on the ground that since petitioners case was completed under Act of 1973, no proceedings under Section 15(2) could be reopened. 23. The Board of Revenue in its order dated 04.04.1989, specifically stated that the appellants (Chandraveer Singh and Chand Kanwar) had only contended that 53 bighas of land of the Khata of Keshar Singh has wrongly been included. It also recorded that the learned Counsel for the appellants has not disputed the fact that there was 227 bighas 3 biswas of land on 01.01.1973 in the Khata of appellant No. 1 and his wife. 24. The contention against the inclusion of 53 bighas of land was not accepted by the Board. It was concluded by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue that it is also not disputed that Keshar Singh had died before 01.01.1973, so after his death, his wife and son will inherit his holdings in equal shares. 25. Before filing the writ petition, the petitioner also filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has placed on record the memo of review. 25. Before filing the writ petition, the petitioner also filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has placed on record the memo of review. A perusal of the memo of review shows that he has virtually taken all the grounds in his review petition against the order passed by the learned Member of Board of Revenue on 04.04.1989 as he has taken in grounds of appeal, but has conspicuously not made any statement challenging correctness of the statement made in their order dated 04.04.1989 that the petitioner has only contended in respect of inclusion of 53 bighas of land. No averment was made that argument challenging the reopening of ceiling case of Chandraveer Singh was raised but was not decided by the Board in its order dated 04.04.1989 nor even general averment was made that other arguments including challenge to reopening of ceiling proceedings were raised but not decided. The fact that he and his wife together held 227 bighas and 3 biswas of land is still not in dispute. 9.26. Be that as it may, the review petition was allowed on 11.08.1989 to the extent that there was a calculation mistake in computing the holdings of Keshar Singh. The learned Member of Board of Revenue noticed once again that he has decided in his order dated 04.04.1989 that the appellant had on 01.01.1973, 227.3 bighas and 53 bighas of land which he has acquired by inheritance. He has further reiterated that it was required to be decided whether the computation of 53 bighas of land had been made correctly. The learned Member was of the opinion that the basis of inclusion of 53 bighas of land was the computation of holdings in ceiling proceedings of Keshar Singh and since ultimately Keshar Singh was granted certain relief , which has not been taken into account, therefore, from the final holdings which was found remaining with Keshar Singh, was reduced by 22 bighas and to that extent 11 bighas share of Chandraveer Singh was also reduced from his part of inherited holdings and consequently the determination of surplus land was also modified. 10.27. This led to filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4269/1989 before this Court which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 10.27. This led to filing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4269/1989 before this Court which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. From the order under appeal, it appears that the principal ground which was raised before the learned Single Judge was about the invalidity of order of re-opening under Section 15(2) of the ceiling proceedings relating to land held by Chandraveer Singh - the petitioner No. 1. He contended that since he had been previously assessed under Act of 1973, reopening of case could take place under Section 15(1) and not under Section 15(2). 128. The learned Single Judge noticed that from the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 04.04.1989 in appeal (Annexure-5), it clearly appears that only one contention was raised before the learned Member of Board of Revenue that 53 bighas of land of the khata of Keshar Singh was wrongly included and no other contention was raised before the Board of Revenue. 129. The learned Single Judge also noticed that a review petition dated 12.05.1989 (Annexure-6) was filed before the Board of Revenue raising several grounds in it. He noticed that in the grounds of review it has been stated that ceiling case No. 67/75 was decided by the authority under the New Ceiling Act, 1973 on 31.05.1978 for which the re-opening order was passed under Section 15(2) of the Ceiling Act, which provision is for old ceiling law and case could be decided only under Section 15(1) of the Act and, therefore, the same decision may be treated as a decision rendered in ceiling case No. 13/71 in case of father of the petitioner. 30. After noticing this ground in the memo of review, the learned Single Judge opined that in review order (Annexure-7) passed by the Revenue Board on 11.08.1989, it is clear that the Review Petition was heard and decided by the Revenue Board at the admission stage itself after hearing both the parties. 2.31. However, the learned Single Judge was of further opinion that it is clear that the petitioner had not taken the aforesaid contention, which is sought to be taken for the first time in this writ petition. No doubt, a point was sought to be raised in Para No. 5 of the review petition but it is clear that the same was not at all argued in review also. 32. No doubt, a point was sought to be raised in Para No. 5 of the review petition but it is clear that the same was not at all argued in review also. 32. On this premise, the learned Single Judge was further of the opinion that this issue cannot be raised for the first time before this Court. It was also observed that since no second review was filed before the Revenue Board that though the contention regarding Old Ceiling Act and New Ceiling Act was raised and argued but not considered by the Revenue Board. In this writ petition also, no averment is made to the effect that though this contention was specifically argued before the Revenue Board in appeal and review yet the Revenue Board did not decide the same. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed stating that except the aforesaid contentions, no other contention was raised in the petition. 33. Aggrieved with this order, this appeal is before us. 3.34. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended firstly, that the learned Single Judge was not right in not allowing the petitioner to contend about the invalidity of the order dated 23.05.1983 (Annexure-2), which is purported to be a direction about the re-opening of the ceiling case of the petitioners father under Section15 (2) under the old ceiling law. It was also contended that the petitioners case was never decided under old ceiling law and his case could be re-opened only under Section 15(1) of the Act, but no notice having been issued under Section 15(1), and no direction was given under Section 15(1), the direction given under Section 15(2) cannot be made a ground for re-opening the ceiling proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Act of 1973. 4.35. In this connection, it was also pointed out that though the ground about invalidity of re-opening under Section15 (2) has been taken in the memo of appeal, but the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that in memo of appeal filed before the Revenue Board, is not on record, whereas, it has been filed as Annexure-4 and that the learned Single Judge was also in error while stating that no second review petition was filed, as the second review petition was not maintainable. 5.36. 5.36. In support of his plea, our attention was invited to the memo of appeal filed before the Board of Revenue and review petition raising all the issues. 6.37. Having given our careful consideration, we are unable to sustain this plea that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that except the ground relating to inclusion of 53 bighas of land in the lands held by the petitioner and his wife, no other ground was raised before the Board of Revenue. Notwithstanding that many other grounds are raised in memo of appeal, ultimately the Court decides the arguments which are made before it. It happens in many cases that number of grounds are taken in memo of appeal but at the time of hearing, according to the Judgment of the Counsel, the contentions are raised in respect or some of it only. Therefore, the fact that in memo of appeal certain grounds have been raised, does not necessarily mean that all were actually argued before the Court, particularly when the adjudicating authority records only point argued or no other points argued. It is ordinarily to be assumed that other points though taken in memo of appeal or petition, were not argued and waived. 38. We have noticed in the order dated 04.04.1989 before the Revenue Board which clearly stated as under:-“The learned Counsel for the appellant has not disputed the fact that there was 227.3 bighas of land on 01.01.1973 in the khata of the appellant No. 1 and he has only contended that 53 bighas of land was in the khata of Keshar Singh which was wrongly been included.” 39. In review petition filed before the Board, it has not been stated that the above statem