Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the State. This is not the solitary case but in almost all the hearing cases neither the Government Advocate nor other representative on behalf of the Government is appearing to represent the case. Time and again, this Court informed the Advocate General also to take appropriate steps in this regard. Now, its high time for the Advocate General to take appropriate steps and action against such law officers and make appropriate arrangements otherwise without any assistance of the law officer, this Court has no option other than to consider the reply submitted on behalf of the State and decide the case. 2. This writ petition is directed against the Judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur dated 011.1992 and the Board of Revenue dated 02.07.1996 in appeal and 10.09.1996 in review petition. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner categorically stated in this review petition that before deciding the right under Rule 17(4) of the Ceiling Rules, 1963 and without considering the claim of the petitioner has passed the order and declared the surplus land which is contrary to law. 4. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case Gopal Singh vs, State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 1983 RLR 915 wherein the Court has held that after resumption of Jagir impartible character of property lost and Joint Hindu Family property became subject to partition-Khudkasht land held by Jagirdar G on behalf of Joint Hindu Family and after resumption khatedari rights, held by him on behalf of Joint Hindu Family Shares of kindependent sons of G in such land should be exclused while determining ceiling area applicable. 5. Similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case “Ram Pratap & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,” reported in 1989 RRD 127. The Division Bench while considering this aspect has held that:- “Land in khatedari of minor sons of R which they had succeeded to on partition of ancestral property clubbed with land of R while determining ceiling area merely on ground that at relevant time those sons were minor. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,” reported in 1989 RRD 127. The Division Bench while considering this aspect has held that:- “Land in khatedari of minor sons of R which they had succeeded to on partition of ancestral property clubbed with land of R while determining ceiling area merely on ground that at relevant time those sons were minor. Word dependent occurring in Section 30-B, meaning of which, it was held that minor sons of R could not be held to be members of Rs family unless definite finding was there that they were dependent on R. 6. Also in the case Jugal Kishore & Ors. vs. S.D.O., Baran & Ors., reported in RLR 1988 (2) 595 and it was held that “Authorities fell in error is not arriving at finding on question as to whether land was ancestral property and whether co-parceners were entitled for any share in the land which was in the hands of petitioner, and whether minor son was dependent on petitioner and the case was remanded to RAA to decide said questions. 7. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and reply submitted by the respondents and the review petition wherein it is categorically stated in Para 11 that the Court has not considered the fact that the land in question was joint khatedari land or a Jagir land or khudkasht and alongwith the petitioner his two sons Bharat Singh and Vikram Singh also having share in that land as they have right of notional share in the land belonging to their father as per Rule 17(4). 8. Upon careful perusal of the order impugned it reveals that this aspect has not been considered by the Court below. 9. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and the orders impugned passed by the Additional Collector dated 011.1992 and Board of Revenue dated 02.07.1996 are herewith quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector Sawaimadhopur for fresh adjudication and shall pass order after considering Rule 17(4) giving opportunity of being heard to the parties and considering the claim of the petitioner in view of the Judgment s referred here-in-above. The petitioner can also raise all the other grounds before the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur which are not dealt by the Courts below.