Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1982 (RAJ)

Farookh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-30

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2005
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This writ petition has been submitted with the prayer for quashing of the order dated 25.08.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Nagaur (Annexure-10), whereby the learned Additional Collector ordered resumption of 13.64 standard acres of land as was held to be the excess holding beyond the ceiling limit by the deceased Bhura as on 01.04.1966; and for quashing of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 03.02.1995 and 26.06.1995 (Annexures-11 and 12), whereby the learned Member of the Board rejected the appeal against the aforesaid order dated 25.08.1994 and so also the review application submitted by the petitioners. Brief facts relevant for the present writ petition could be summarized thus. 2. The petitioners No. 1, 3 and 4 are claimed to be the sons of the assessee Bhura whereas the petitioners No. 2/1 to 2/6 to be the legal representatives of Amluddin, the deceased son of Bhura, Petitioner No. 5 Mst. Aasiya is claimed to be the widow of Bhura, whereas the petitioner No. 6, named as Mst. Baya @ Hasmat, is claimed to be the daughter of Bhura. 3. The said Shri Bhura, the assessee, had certain agricultural land standing in his name. Proceedings for assessing the area held by him for the purpose of ceiling law as contained in the then existing Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the old ceiling law”) were undertaken. The assessee submitted his return alongwith the requisite declaration. The petitioners have claimed in the writ petition that during the pendency of the proceedings. The assessee died and all the four sons of the assessee including Amluddin, who later on expired and the daughter of the assessee were impleaded as parties. However, this fact of impleadment of the daughter of Bhura as party has not been shown to be referable to any particular proceeding in the record. Even the mutation entry on the death of Bhura as effected on 05.03.1970 show that the land was mutated only in the name of the four sons of Bhura. Be that as it may, coming to this aspect of the matter later in this order, for continuity of narration of the facts, it may be pointed out that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur by his order dated 212.1973 passed in Ceiling Case No. 43/1970 ordered acquisition of 32 bighas and 14 biswas as surplus land. Be that as it may, coming to this aspect of the matter later in this order, for continuity of narration of the facts, it may be pointed out that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur by his order dated 212.1973 passed in Ceiling Case No. 43/1970 ordered acquisition of 32 bighas and 14 biswas as surplus land. From the record it appears that the petitioner Farookh filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority against the said order but the Revenue Appellate Authority ordered that the appeal be submitted to the competent Court i.e., of Additional Collector, Nagaur. 4. The Additional Collector, Nagaur in Appeal No. 490/1976 passed an order on 04.06.1976 that after the death of Bhura, the lower Court has not issued notices to the present khatedars i.e., the heirs of Bhura and a proper inquiry ought to have been made as to whether the land could be acquired or not after a finding on the number of members of the family and the manner in which the land was received by them. It appears from the order dated 04.06.1976 available in the record of the old ceiling proceedings that the Government pleader was also not having any objection in remand of the matter. 5. After remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer recorded the statements of Azim and Farookh on 16.06.1976 and on this very day decided the said Case No. 43/1970 afresh and found that the family of Bhura was having 13 persons and calculating on that basis, it was found that no land was in excess of the ceiling limit and, therefore, the proceedings were dropped. 6. In pursuance to and under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1973/new ceiling law”), the Government reopened the dropped proceedings by the order dated 17.03.1980 (Annexure-2). 7. 6. In pursuance to and under the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1973/new ceiling law”), the Government reopened the dropped proceedings by the order dated 17.03.1980 (Annexure-2). 7. From the perusal of the order Annexure-2, it appears that reasons which prevailed with the Government to reopen the proceedings were that the SDO while passing the order dated 16.06.1976 never considered as to how much of the land was available with the assessee as on 25.02.1958; that the assessee was alive on 01.04.1966 hence the number of members of his family ought to have been inquired into under Section 30-B; the Tehsildar has verified 6 members in the family, whereas the assessee had claimed 31 members in the declaration and whereas the SDO found this number to be 13 without pointing out the basis thereof , from the record it was also not clear if the land was not transferred/divided after 25.02.1958, which was also required to be inquired into under Sections 30-D and 30-DD. Therefore, it was found that the order dated 16.06.1976 was not in accordance with Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act, 1955 and was prejudicial to the State Government. 8. In the reopened proceedings, a reply dated 27.04.1981 has been submitted by the petitioner Farookh through Counsel, which has although not been annexed with the present writ petition, but is available in the record at Pages A-6/1 to A-6/3, and shall be referred hereinafter. Five witnesses were examined while contesting the reopened proceedings and after reciting the names of these five witnesses, the petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition thus,-“8. That all the five witnesses referred to above, proved the following two things: .(i) That the assessee Bhura had four sons, one daughter on 01.04.1966. .(ii) That the assessee Bhura had two grand children also on 01.04.1966. Thus, the evidence of all these witnesses proves beyond doubt that there were nine members in the family of Shri Bhura, assessee.” 9. That all the five witnesses referred to above, proved the following two things: .(i) That the assessee Bhura had four sons, one daughter on 01.04.1966. .(ii) That the assessee Bhura had two grand children also on 01.04.1966. Thus, the evidence of all these witnesses proves beyond doubt that there were nine members in the family of Shri Bhura, assessee.” 9. While deciding the re-opened ceiling proceedings, the Additional Collector, Nagaur by his order dated 25.08.1994 held that there were only six members in the family of Bhura as certified by the Tehsildar and taking the number of members in the family as six only, the Additionl Collector found that family to be entitled to retain 35 standard acres of land but was having 48.64 standard acres and, therefore, 13.64 acres of land was held to be liable for acquisition. 10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 25.08.1994, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 03.02.1995. The learned Member of the Board agreed with the findings of the Additional Collector that the number of the members of the family of Bhura was six only because the relationship of other persons with Bhura was not shown in the declaration and the declaration was not carrying the name of the daughter. The learned Member of the Board also dismissed the review application submitted by the petitioners by the order dated 26.06.1995. The petitioners have, therefore, filed this writ petition challenging the orders aforesaid. 11. Basically this writ petition is founded on two grounds. First, that the reopening order dated 17.03.1980 is without jurisdiction as it could not have been made beyond 312.1979 in view of the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1973; and secondly that the Authorities below have failed to consider the evidence led by the petitioners to prove the number of members of the family of Bhura and that reliance upon the report of Tehsildar was not proper as he was not produced in evidence. Third submission was raised during the course of arguments by the learned Counsel that all the heirs of Bhura were not noticed, particularly the daughter and wife of Bhura were not heard before passing of the reopening order or even before passing of the order dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure-10) under the reopened case and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. 12. Third submission was raised during the course of arguments by the learned Counsel that all the heirs of Bhura were not noticed, particularly the daughter and wife of Bhura were not heard before passing of the reopening order or even before passing of the order dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure-10) under the reopened case and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners attempted to raise the objection regarding validity of the reopening proceedings beyond the statutory period as provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1973, however, in all fairness after looking into the provisions and particularly the Amendment Act, 1979, conceded that he would not press this ground. Even otherwise the final order in this case has been passed on 16.06.1976 (Annexure-1) under the old ceiling law and the reopening has been ordered on 17.03.1980 and prior to that notice has been served upon the persons concerned. Although notice so served has not been produced on record but in any case it is apparent that the reopening has been ordered very much within the limitation prescribed by Section 15 and the learned Counsel has rightly conceded on the point. 13. The only contentious issue, therefore, remains about the number of members of the family of Bhura for the purposes of the provisions of the old ceiling law as on 01.04.1966. 14. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagaur while passing the order dated 16.06.1976 found in relation to the number of the members of the family of Bhura thus,- wÞlhfyax ,DV 66 easfn;s x;s flM;y vuqlkj vizkFkhZ T;knk ls T;knk 165 ch?kk Hkwfe ¼ch Vw½ ckjkuh nks;e vius ,d ifjokj ds fy;s j[kus dk vf /kdkjh gS exj pwafd Lo0 Hkwjk ds ifjokj ds dqy 13 lnL; gSa ,oe~ lhfyax ds ekeys esa ifjokj esa dkSu dkSu lnL; ekus tk ldrs gSa ;g /kkjk 30 ch jk-d-v- lu~ 55 esa ifjHkkf "kr fd;k x;k gSa ftlds vuqlkj iRuh cPps iksrs ¼Grand Children½ tks fd [kkrsnkj ij vkfJr gks kqr kgknr ls ,oa Hkwekj fd;s tk ldrs gSa vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqjk dh ifRu] iq=] iksrs gaS tks dqy 13 O;fDr gSSaAÞ 15. On the considerations aforesaid, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was of opinion that in view of the 13 members in the family, no surplus land was available with the family for acquisition. On the considerations aforesaid, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was of opinion that in view of the 13 members in the family, no surplus land was available with the family for acquisition. The State Government while ordering reopening of the case, inter alia, found that the Sub-Divisional Officer has failed in his duty to carry out the requisite inquiry about the number of the members in the family. It has been observed in the order dated 17.03.1980 (Annexure-2) thus.- ÞrLnhd ds vuqlkj rglhynkj us mlds ifjokj ds 6 lnL; ekus gSa tc fd vizkFkhZ us vius ?kks"k.kk&i= esa lnL;ksa dh la[;k 31 fy[kh gS vkSj mi ftyk/khk us vius QSlys esa vizkFkhZ ds ifjokj a dh la[;k 13 ekuh gSA mi ftyk/khk us lnL;ksds lnL;ksa dh la[;k 13 fdl vk/kkj ij ekuh gS bldk Hkh dksbZ foospu fu.kZ; esa ugha fd;k x;k gSaAÞ 16. It may be pointed out that in the order dated 17.03.1980, it was also observed that alienation/division after 15.02.1958 was also not inquired into and that inquiry was requisite under Sections 30-D and 30-DD of the Act but, those observations have no relevance to the present petition because in the reopened case the only question which has been dealt with relates to number of members of the family of Bhura as on 01.04.1966. The Additional, Collector, in respect of number of members of the family has recorded finding in the order dated 25.08.1994 (Annexure-10) thus,- kFkhZ us vius ?kks"k.kk i= esa ifjokj ds lnL;ksÞviza dh tks lwfp isk dh gS mlesalHkh dks vius ij vkfJr gksuk crk;k gS o ifjokj ds lnL; la[;k 31 gksuk crk;k gSa tks ekuus dkfcy ugha gSA rglhynkj dh tkap ls vizkFkhZ ds ifjokj dh lnL; la[;k 6 ikbZz x;h tks vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr lwfp ls feyku djus ij lgh gksuk izrhr gksrh gaS vr% vizkFkhZ ds ifjokj dh lnL; la[;k 6 ekuh tkrh gSAÞ 17. In those proceedings Farookh, Amluddin, Hanif and Sarfuddin only were made the parties. However, it appears that before the Board of Revenue, Mst. Aasiya widow of Bhura and Mst. Baya daughter of Bhura have also appealed as appellants No. 5 and 6 alongwith the aforesaid four sons of Bhura. In those proceedings Farookh, Amluddin, Hanif and Sarfuddin only were made the parties. However, it appears that before the Board of Revenue, Mst. Aasiya widow of Bhura and Mst. Baya daughter of Bhura have also appealed as appellants No. 5 and 6 alongwith the aforesaid four sons of Bhura. The learned Member of the Board agreed with the finding regarding 6 members in the family of Bhura and while rejecting the appeal by the order dated 03.02.1995 (Annexure-11) observed.- Þnksuksa i{kksa dh cgl ij xkSj djus ,oa fjdkMZ ns[kus ij ge ikrs gaS fd e`rd Hkwjk us Lo;a tks ?kks"k.kk i= izLrqa ijUrq mlesa Hkwj mldh ifRu rFkk mldsr fd;k gS mlesa ifjokj ds lnL; 31 crk;s gSjk vkSa dk ifjokj gksuk vfrfjDr dyDVj us ekuk gS mle a dksbZ = fqfd bu4 iq= dqy 6 lnL;ksV ugha gS D;kas 6 ds vykok ks"k O;fDr;kas dk Hkwjk ls D;k laca/k gS ;g ?kks"k.kk i= esa Hkh ugha fn[kk;k x;k gS blds vykok bu lnL;ksa dh lwph esa Hkwjk dh ifRu dk uke rks gS] ijUrq iq=h dk uke dgha vafdr ugha gSA bl izdkj fo}ku vfrfjDr dyDVj us ifjokj dh la[;k 6 lgh ekuh gSAß 18. In the order dated 26.06.1995 rejecting the review application, the learned Member of the Board has rejected the contentions to the contrary made on behalf of the petitioners regarding number of members in the family and observed,- “As regards the members of family in Para 6 of the decision the reasons for not accepting the alleged number of family members and considering only six members in the family has been given with adequate reasoning. As regards necessary parties the Government order of re-opening dated 17.03.1980 also contains the names of legal representatives who have been made party in the order by the Additional Collector hence there seems no force in the argument of learned Counsel.” 19. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that there was no justification with the learned Additional Collector and the learned Member of the Board to record a finding that there were only 6 members in the family. Firstly, the Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 16.06.1976 has conducted requisite inquiry and then recorded finding that there were 13 members of the family. Firstly, the Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 16.06.1976 has conducted requisite inquiry and then recorded finding that there were 13 members of the family. The evidence having already been considered and no new or important evidence having coming into existence or having been shown, a contrary order than the earlier one could not have been passed. The learned Counsel also submitted regarding the observations as quoted hereinabove of the Board of Revenue that not stating the relationship in the declaration would be of no avail and the matter could have been inquired into and it was primarily for the State to have established as to how they were calculating only 6 members in the family? The entire evidence was available with the State to show that it was a self-acquired property of Bhura but that has also not been produced. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not even informed about the Tehsildars report and the authorities below have acted wholly illegally in relying upon the same without proper inquiry. Learned Counsel also relied upon decision in Devendra Nath Singh vs. Civil Judge, 1999 (1) SCC 71 , to submit that by way of reopening, re-appraisal of the entire evidence was not permissible. 20. The learned Additional Government Advocate has contended that firstly the petitioners have filed to show the existence of other persons on 01.04.1966 so as to calculate 13 members in the family and further that nothing has been shown about the dependency of the alleged members of the family so as to count them as the members for the purpose of the old ceiling law. Learned Additional Government Advocate has also contended that there were stark contradictions in the evidence led by the petitioners and further that the two Authorities below having examined the evidence in its proper perspective, there are no special circumstances to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court nor it is a case of manifest injustice. 21. It may be pointed that in this writ petition, the record of Ceiling Case No. 43/1970 decided on 16.06.1976 and Case No. 129/1987 decided on 25.08.1994 both have been received as requisitioned by this Court on 12.01.1998. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been given thoughtful consideration and the entire available record has been scanned through. 22. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been given thoughtful consideration and the entire available record has been scanned through. 22. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and the rival submissions, this Court is of opinion that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 23. An examination of the declaration submitted by the deceased Bhura (photostat certified copy at P. 41 of the paper book) shows that while 13 members have been stated, the name of Bhura, his wife Aasiya, his sons Farookh, Amluddin, Hanif and Mohd. Sharif appear in that order at Sl Nos. 1 to 6. All other persons of different ages and parentage cannot be taken to be the members of the family of Bhura. It appears from the report of tehsildar, upon which, the Authorities below have relied upon (photostat certified copy at P. 37 Annexure-8) that the Tehsildar reported about the number of the members of the family to be six. Which included the assessee himself , his wife and four sons. From the original record, it appears that this report of Tehsildar was made during the old acquisition proceedings itself and the same is available at P. A-4/7 of the record, although its date is not available. 24. From the previous order dated 16.06.1976, it is not borne out as to how the learned Sub-Divisional Officer calculated 13 members of the family of the assessee. In the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, as quoted hereinabove, the figure of 13 has been arrived at by including wife of Bhura, sons and grand sons. Significantly, there is no mention at all either in the declaration or in the Tehsildars report or even in the order dated 16.06.1976 of any daughter of Bhura being available as a member of family dependant upon him and answering to the description as contemplated by Section 30-B of the old ceiling law. 25. Pleadings in the present writ petition are significant as made in Para 8 which have been quoted hereinabove. The petitioners have specifically asserted that there were nine members of the family of Bhura. It is, therefore, evident by the assertions of the petitioners themselves that so far the calculation of thirteen members of the family was concerned, the same was fundamentally incorrect. 26. The petitioners have specifically asserted that there were nine members of the family of Bhura. It is, therefore, evident by the assertions of the petitioners themselves that so far the calculation of thirteen members of the family was concerned, the same was fundamentally incorrect. 26. The authorities below have taken six members in the family of Bhura, whereas the petitioners contend that they were nine members. This difference of three persons has arisen because according to the petitioners one daughter of Bhura and two grand-children available on 01.04.1966 have not been counted. 27. Therefore, the issue crystallizes only about consideration of these three persons, namely one daughter of Bhura and two grand-children of Bhura. Taking up the case of grand-children first, in the evidence produced by the petitioners it has been attempted to be shown that Farookh had two sons named Salimuddin alleged to be 15 years of age as on 16.06.1976 and Haroon aged 13 years on that date and these are the two grand-children of Bhura who were available on 01.04.1966. However, in the declaration, as referred hereinabove, although names of 31 persons have been given, some of which have been shown to be the children of the age of 6, 8 and 10 years, significantly these two sons of Farookh have not been stated. In his second statement recorded on 18.05.1984 in cross-examination Farookh has stated that his elder son was 20 years of age and other children were below 17 years. This age of the elder son of 20 years as on 18.05.1984 does not reconcile with the statement dated 16.06.1976 where the elder son was alleged to be aged 15 years at that time. The difference of three years in the age of the said son in the two statements of Farookh assumes importance in view of the fact that no such son of Farookh has been mentioned in the declaration made in the year 1971. The very basis of the story of Bhura having two grand-children on 01.04.1966 is shaken. 28. This story of Bhura having two grand-children as on 01.04.1966 which has already gone in serious doubt, falls to the ground by a bare look at the reply made by Farookh in these reopened proceedings on 27.04.1981 which is available on the record of Ceiling Case No. 129/1987 at P.A-6/1 to A-6/3. 28. This story of Bhura having two grand-children as on 01.04.1966 which has already gone in serious doubt, falls to the ground by a bare look at the reply made by Farookh in these reopened proceedings on 27.04.1981 which is available on the record of Ceiling Case No. 129/1987 at P.A-6/1 to A-6/3. In this reply it has been stated that the calculation earlier made in the order dated 16.06.1976 was correct and yet the members behind Bhura are stated in appendix to the reply. The appendix states five persons as heirs of Bhura, namely Farookh, Amluddin, Hanif and Mohd. Sharif as the sons of Bhura and Hasmat as daughter of Bhura. There are other names of 4 persons given as the heirs of Gafoor. It appears from the reply and the stand sought to be taken in the reopened proceedings that it was attempted to be shown that Bhuras further Ismile had another son Gafoor and the families of Gafoor and Bhura were all jointly dependents upon the land in question and that is why they later on adopted proceedings for division of the holdings. Be that as it may, such story has not been pressed in service in this writ petition and need not be dilated further. However, from the reply aforesaid as filed by the petitioner through the Counsel shows it clearly that the story about existence of two grand-children of Bhura as on 01.04.1966 had no legs to stand. 29. Coming to the question of the daughter of Bhura, it is found from the declaration that no such daughter was mentioned at all. The Tehsildar in his report has also not found any such daughter. Significantly, the order dated 16.06.1976 calculating 13 members in the family also does not State about daughter, but it specifically refers to ifRu] iq=] iksrs (wife, sons and grandsons). Then, there arises a significant incongruity about this daughter of Bhura. In the appendix (with reply dated 27.04.1981) referred hereinabove, the daughter has been named as Hasmat. She has been referred as Baudi by Farookh in his statement dated 17.06.1976. However, in the statement dated 18.05.1984 her name has been given as Hasmat. Then, there arises a significant incongruity about this daughter of Bhura. In the appendix (with reply dated 27.04.1981) referred hereinabove, the daughter has been named as Hasmat. She has been referred as Baudi by Farookh in his statement dated 17.06.1976. However, in the statement dated 18.05.1984 her name has been given as Hasmat. From the order of the Board of Revenue Annexure-10, it appears that the appeal was taken in the name of Baya daughter of Bhura and, therefore, an argument has come up before the Board of Revenue that the daughter Hasmat was not made a party but daughter named Baya was made a party. This incongruity has been sought to be filled up in the present writ petition by stating the name of petitioner No. 6 “Mst. Baya @ Hasmat.” It is extremely difficult to believe that the daughter of Bhura was available as on 01.04.1966 and in any case, it has not been shown that she was dependant upon Bhura. 30. It is not the existence of the children alone that they would become members of the family for the purposes of Section 30-B of the old ceiling law. They are required to be shown as dependent on the husband and wife. The criterion for the calculation of the number of members of the family carries an essential ingredient of “Dependency” This daughter of Bhura whether named Baya or Hasmat has never even been remotely shown to be dependent upon Bhura as on 01.04.1966. Her status, and particularly matrimonial status has never been placed before the authorities below. 3.31. So far the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Devendra Nath Singh vs. Civil Judge, 1999 (1) SCC 71 , is concerned, the same does not apply to the present case. Her status, and particularly matrimonial status has never been placed before the authorities below. 3.31. So far the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Devendra Nath Singh vs. Civil Judge, 1999 (1) SCC 71 , is concerned, the same does not apply to the present case. In the said case, the Honble Supreme Court was concerned with the provision of Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 and it has been found by the Apex Court after examining the said provisions that the prescribed authority has the power to reopen the matter within particular time to rectify any apparent mistake which was there on the face of the record and it was held in that context that such power would not include the power to entertain fresh evidence and re-examine the question as to whether two sons of the assessee were major or not. It may be pointed that under the scheme of Section 15 of the Rajasthan Act of 1973, power to reopen the cases has been provided on the Government being satisfied that the final orders passed under the repealed provisions were in contravention of the provisions and prejudicial to the Government or on account of discovery of new and important matter of evidence which has since come to its notice that the order was required to be reopened. It is the order passed by the Board which has been saved under the proviso of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 that it would be reopened on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The provisions considered by the Honble Supreme Court dealt only with rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record and the said provisions remain materially different than the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1973. 4.32. Other submissions sought to be made on behalf of the petitioners are also of no avail. The authorities below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record. Land holdings of the assessee Bhura have been counted with reference to the revenue records. Tehsildars report had been received in the old ceiling proceedings and the same has been considered only with reference to the declaration submitted by the assessee himself . The authorities below have properly appreciated the evidence available on record. Land holdings of the assessee Bhura have been counted with reference to the revenue records. Tehsildars report had been received in the old ceiling proceedings and the same has been considered only with reference to the declaration submitted by the assessee himself . Even if that report is removed out of consideration, the result remains the same as discussed supra. 5.33. The previous calculation of 13 members in the order dated 16.06.1976 was entirely arbitrary and whimsical and it was not even stated as to how those 13 persons were counted as members of Bhuras family? Even the petitioners have submitted in the writ petition that according to their own contention such number was 9. It is a different matter that this contention of 9 members has not found favour with this Court but it is evident that there was no illegality or irregularity in reopening the case. Further, there appears to be no illegality in pronouncing upon 6 members in the family after considering the material available on record. 6.34. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the view taken by the authorities below of the evidence on record cannot be said to be so unreasonable that no Court could ever have reached that conclusion and cannot be said to be so perverse or so patently erroneous or de hors the factual and legal position on record that the same would call for an interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having examined the record, this Court is satisfied that the learned authorities below were perfectly justified in calculating the number of members of the family as 6 only. Neither the daughter nor the grand-children have been shown to be falling within the definition of family under Section 30-B of the Act for the reasons stated above. 1.35. So far not serving of the notice to Mst. Aasiya is concerned, she has already joined as appellant before the Board of Revenue and no injustice has been shown to have occasioned to her. She has specifically been calculated within six members of the family and that is how 35 standard acres of land including 5 acres for an additional member of the family have been allowed to be retained. She has specifically been calculated within six members of the family and that is how 35 standard acres of land including 5 acres for an additional member of the family have been allowed to be retained. It has not been shown that any manifest injustice has occasioned for not serving a notice upon her earlier. No additional fact has been stated by her or on her behalf which had escaped attention or consideration in these proceedings and, therefore, there does not appear to be any justified reason to interfere with the considered orders passed by the authorities below. 2.36. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs. The record of Ceiling Case Nos. 43/1970 and 129/1987 received in this writ petition be returned.