Honble PARIHAR, J.–Though, initially, ceiling proceedings against the original land holder Shiv Prakash Singh were dropped vide order dated 30.5.1971, however, subsequently, as per the directions of the State Government issued under section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Act, the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur, after giving proper notice to the land holder, held that the said Shiv Prakash Singh was only entitled for retaining 30 standard acres of land. Thus, remaining 19 standard acres of land was declared as surplus vide order dated 11.1.1993. The assessee was directed to submit his option within thirty days, failing which, after expiry of the above period, the possession of the surplus land was to be taken by the concerned authorities. In pursuance to the order dated 11.1.1993, possession of the land measuring 16.51 standard acres of land was taken on 14.9.1994. The above land included the land in dispute also. (2). It was only after the possession been taken of the surplus land on 14.9.1994 as per the order passed by the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur on 11.1.1993, the petitioners submitted their objections before the Additional Collector with the contention that they had already purchased the land in dispute from the original land holder and the possession could only be taken from the unencumbered land. The objections were rejected by the Additional Collector vide order dated 5.7.1996. A further appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.9.1996. Even the revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed vide order dated 18.6.1997. Hence, the present writ petition challenging the orders passed by the authorities below. (3). The only objection as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that possession of the surplus land could be taken only from unencumbered land, however, in the present case, petitioners had already purchased the land in dispute from the original land holder, as such, the whole action of the authorities in taking possession of the land of the petitioners is illegal and unjustified. (4). After having considered submissions of counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders impugned passed by the authorities below. (5). (4). After having considered submissions of counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the orders impugned passed by the authorities below. (5). There is no dispute that the land in dispute has been purchased by the petitioners much after the appointed date, as such, the purchase could not be recognised under the law. The authorities below have further noted the fact that the original land holder in his returns never mentioned that the land in question has already been sold to the petitioners. The ceiling proceedings against the original land holder had already become final. It was only after the possession been taken by the concerned authorities the objections were raised by the petitioners before the Additional Collector. The Board of Revenue has specifically taken note of the fact that even the original land holder has not been impleaded while submitting objections before the Additional Collector. It is only the original land holder who could have replied the contentions of the petitioners in regard to purchase of the land in the year 1968. Since after due consideration, proper discretion has been used by the Board of Revenue in upholding the order passed by the Additional Collector, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground for any further interference of this court. Admittedly, the land had been purchased after the appointed date i.e., 1.4.1966. The transferee can only claim price of the land from the assessee. With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits.