Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 558 (RAJ)

Antari Bai v. B. O. R.

2006-02-16

N.P.GUPTA, S.N.JHA

body2006
Honble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 1.10.1986, dismissing the appellants writ petition. By the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 28.7.1986 Annexure-3, and dated 5.2.1979 being Annexure-2, to the writ petition. (2)1 By the order Annexure-2, the Board of Revenue had dismissed the appellants two appeals, being Appeal Nos. 2 of 1977 and 3 of 1977, and vide Annexure-3, a review petition challenging the order passed in Appeal No. 2 of 1977, had been dismissed. Thus, the controversy is confined to the controversy raised in Appeal No. 2 of 1977 before the Board of Revenue. (3). The Board of Revenue, while deciding the Appeal No. 2 of 1977, found, that the stand of the appellant (before the Board) about she being landless person, and entitled to priority in allotment; under Rule 17(3) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973, hereafter referred to as the Rules, cannot be accepted, as the appellant is a person who had transferred the land by selling or otherwise transferring it, therefore, what she is really asking is, for allotment of surplus lands resumed from her, which is to obtain a back-door recognition, of the illegal, or unrecognisable transfers, effected by her, which were not taken cognizance of, in the main ceiling proceedings held with reference of her, and thereby to circumvent the provisions of the Act. It was also found, that the endeavour is certainly in direct opposition to basic objectives of the Act itself, which seeks to resume lands from tenants, or land owners, who have excessive lands in their possession, and allot such surplus lands, to landless labourers, as a measure of social justice. Then in the review petition again, the order was upheld, finding that there is no error apparent on the face of record. (4). The learned Single Judge after considering the provisions of Section 21, and Rule 17, so also the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, held that the idea behind imposition of ceiling under the Act was, that the land holding in favour of a few landholders should be decentralised, and should be given to the landless persons. Then, the provisions of Rule 17(3) were considered in detail on the anvil of the object of the statute. Then, the provisions of Rule 17(3) were considered in detail on the anvil of the object of the statute. Likewise, the provisions of Section 21 were also considered, and it was found, that in the present case the appellant was no doubt a Zamindar, landlord, and in order to save the land being resumed as surplus land, resorted to transfer of the land, and claims to be landless person for allotment, and if such kind of fraud is permitted, then it will be doing great injustice to those persons, and disservice to the purpose with which this land Ceiling Act was brought into force. It was found, that the appellant was allotted 53 acres of land, and on account of non-recognition of transfer of land, claims at present to be landless person, this would mean, that inspite of the fact, that certain transfers were made by the appellant, she could claim to be landless person, thought she had been allotted 53 acres of land, and that would result into bringing land to her from the land pool despite transfer having not been recognised, and would bring about a sheer contradiction, nullifying the earlier order. Thus, it was found that the Board has rightly dismissed the appeals of the appellant, so also the review petition, and the writ petition was dismissed. (5). Assailing these orders, it was contended, that by virtue of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, hereafter referred to as the Act, the surplus land, vested in the State Government, is to be disposed of by way of allotment to landless persons, and though on the face of the language of section, it is prescribed, that the allotment is to be made on priority basis amongst the landless labourers particularly to the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, but then, according to him it is to be done in such a manner, to such extent, and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed. According to the learned Counsel, for the purpose of Section 21 the provisions in this regard had been made in Rule 17, and according to Clause (e) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 173, the appellant being a "landless person residing in the village in which the vested land is situated", is entitled to be allotted land. (6). According to the learned Counsel, for the purpose of Section 21 the provisions in this regard had been made in Rule 17, and according to Clause (e) of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 173, the appellant being a "landless person residing in the village in which the vested land is situated", is entitled to be allotted land. (6). Then, learned Counsel invited our attention to the statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the Act, and then to the objects and reasons of the Amendment Bill, and by reading them, it was stressed, that the whole purpose of the enactment was, to make provision, so that surplus land vested in the State Government can be utilised for agrarian requirement, and may be available for distribution to landless persons. Referring to the judgment of Honble the Supreme Court, in M/s. New India Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bihar, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1207 , it was submitted, that the provisions of the Act are to be harmoniously interpreted, in such a manner, as may advance object of the Act. In his submission, the object of the Act is to distribute the surplus land among the landless persons, and since the present appellant is a landless person, is entitled to priority under Rule 17(3)(e), and, therefore, was entitled to be allotted the land, as per this priority. This having not been done, by holding the appellant to be not landless person, and to be not entitled to any allotment, even on the face of language of Rule 17, the authorities below have erred, and consequently the impugned orders are required to be set aside. (7). We have considered the submissions, and have gone through the relevant provisions, so also the impugned orders. (8). True it is, that the provisions of the Act, and obviously, the Rules framed thereunder, are to be interpreted in a harmonious manner, so as to advance the object of the Act. On this proposition, there is no dispute. The question then is, as to what is the outcome of such harmonious interpretation, so as to decide, as to whether the impugned orders require any interference, or not? (9). We may first refer to the provisions of Rule 17, on which, much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel. On this proposition, there is no dispute. The question then is, as to what is the outcome of such harmonious interpretation, so as to decide, as to whether the impugned orders require any interference, or not? (9). We may first refer to the provisions of Rule 17, on which, much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel. We may gainfully, and for ready reference, quote the provisions of Rule 17 which reads as under:— "17. Allotment of vested surplus land. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sub-rules (2), (3), (4) and Rules 18, 19, 20, 20-A and 21 the surplus land vested in the State Government under any law relating to the imposition of ceiling on agricultural holdings shall be allotted in accordance with the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 in non-project areas and in accordance with the rules or statement of conditions issued under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, in project areas. (2) Seventy five percent of the surplus land vesting in the State Government, after deducting the lands allotted to landless persons as defined in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (3), if any, shall be reserved for allotment to the landless labourers of the village belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes and to the released bonded labourers and to the beneficiaries of the Integrated Rural Development Programme. (3) In making allotment of land, the following order of priority shall be observed:— (a) Persons who are in possession of land transferred to them by persons whose lands have vested in the State under the Act and who are residents of the village Panchayat in the jurisdiction of which the land is situated or residents of a village Panchayat which adjoins such a village Panchayat, in the following order of priority:— (i) residents of the village Panchayat in which the land is situated and as amongst them preference will be given to person who belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; (ii) residents of village Panchayat which adjoin the village Panchayat in which the land is situated and as amongst them, preference will be given to person who belong to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes:— Provided that such transfers have not been recognised by the Authorised Officer under the Act and such transferees were landless persons as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 prior to the transfer of the aforementioned land to them. Provided further that such transfers of land are genuine and are not sham, bogus or benami and are in accordance with law and were not made, in favour of any member of the transferors family. Provided also that the total area of land to be allotted to such an eligible transferee is not in excess of the area of land transferred to him prior to 1.1.1973 by a tenant whose ceiling surplus land has vested in the State and to total area of land to be held by such transferee including the land already held by him prior to the acquisition of the transferred land does not exceed the ceiling area applicable to him. Explanation.—Transfers, effected upto 31.12.1972 only shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of this rule and transfers effected on or after 1.1.1973 shall not be considered. (b) Landless labourers of the village belonging to Scheduled Castes or Schedules Tribes, released Bonded labourers and the beneficiaries of the Integrated Rural Development Programme. (c) A landless person who is a non-commissioned member of the armed forces or a member of the Border Security force, and who has rendered not less than five years service as such or who is an ex-serviceman. (c) A landless person who is a non-commissioned member of the armed forces or a member of the Border Security force, and who has rendered not less than five years service as such or who is an ex-serviceman. Explanation.—For purposes of this clause, "ex-serviceman" means any person who has been released from the armed force after having served in any rank other than that of a Commissioned Officer (including a Junior Commissioned Officer or equivalent rank) in the Indian Armed Forces for at lease five years. (d) a landless person who does not hold any land, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of the joint family. (e) Any other landless person residing in the village in which the vested land is situated. (f) A tenant of contiguous plot of land holding landless than the ceiling area applicable to him. (g) Any other landless person and persons identified as refugees and certified to be such by a competent officer designated in this behalf by the State Government and granted Indian Citizenship:— Provided that if there are more than one applicants belonging to the same category for the same land, the land shall be allotted to the applicant whose application was received first:-— Provided further that no allotment of lands shall be made so as to result in the allottee getting or holding land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. (4) The Collector shall have the power to cancel any allotment made at any time, under the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government) Rules, 1963 or under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973, or under any other rules so far as the allotment relates to land acquired under laws relating to agricultural ceilings either suo moto or on the application of any person, in case the allotment has been secured through fraud or mis-representation, or has been made against rules, or in case the allottee has committed breach of any of the conditions of allotment; Provided that no such order to the prejudice of any person shall be passed without giving such person an opportunity of being heard." (10). Now taking up the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, about the appellant being entitled to be allotted land, on the basis of the preference provided by Rule 17(3)(e), as any landless person, i.e., as to whether, the appellant can at all be said to fall within the category prescribed in Rule 17(3)(e)? (11). Rule 17(3)(e), as quoted above, comprehends allotment of land to any other landless person residing in village, in which the vested land is situated. The expression landless person has not been defined in the Act. However, in Rule 2(d) it is provided, that the words and expression defined in the Act, or in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, wherever used, be construed, to have the meanings assigned to them by the Act,or by the said Acts, as the case may be. Rule (d) of the Rules reads as under:— "(2) (d) Words and expressions defined in the [Act] or in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act, 15 of 1956), wherever used herein, be construed to have the meanings assigned to them by the [Act] or by the said Acts, as the case may be". (12). Then, Section 2(q) of the Act provides as under:— "2(Q). Words and expressions defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 15 of 1956) shall, wherever used herein, be construed to have the meanings assigned to them by the said Acts." (13). Thus, in absence of the definition of the words and expressions in the act, the one given in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, wherever used in the Act is to be construed, to have the meanings assigned to them by the said Acts. Thus, in absence of the definition of the words and expressions in the act, the one given in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, or in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, wherever used in the Act is to be construed, to have the meanings assigned to them by the said Acts. In that view of the matter, since the expression landless persons, has not been defined in the Act, or the Rules, we have to refer to the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, wherein, in Section 5 (26-A), the expression landless person has been defined as under:— "5 (26-A) "landless persons" shall mean an agriculturist by profession who cultivates or can reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally but who does not hold any land, whether in his own name or in the name of any member of his joint family, or holds a fragment." (14). Thus, according to this definition, the landless persons means, an agriculturist by profession/who cultivates, or can reasonably be expected to cultivate land personally, but who does not hold any land, whether in his own name, or in the name of any member of his joint family, or holds a fragment. (15). The appellant claims, that she does not hold any land, and, therefore, she is landless person. Accepting the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, about requirement of harmonious construction, the expression "does not hold any land" is required to be interpreted, in the background of the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, which is, to bring the benefit of socio economic land reform legislation, and make the surplus agricultural land to be available for distribution to landless person. (16). It is not in dispute, that the appellant did hold land, and did hold in much excess quantity, which alone attracted the initiation of the proceedings against her for determination of her ceiling area, it is also not in dispute, that the proceedings did culminate against the appellant, and a finding was recorded, to the effect, that the appellant holds surplus land, and that surplus land was ordered to be resumed. Admittedly that order is no more under challenge, and has acquired finality. (17). The obvious consequence is, that with ordering resumption, and effecting resumption of the surplus land, the appellant was left with the land, to the extent of permissible ceiling limit. Admittedly that order is no more under challenge, and has acquired finality. (17). The obvious consequence is, that with ordering resumption, and effecting resumption of the surplus land, the appellant was left with the land, to the extent of permissible ceiling limit. Obviously, thus within the meaning of provisions of the Act, the appellant does hold land, to the extent permissible under ceiling law. (18). We may at this place also advert ourselves towards the aspect, as to how the situation has come about, on the basis of which the petitioner is attempting to lay claim as landless person? (19). We may in this regard refer to the provisions of Section 6, so also the provisions of Sections 16 and 18 of the Act. The three provisions read as under:— "6. Non-recognition of certain transfers.—(I) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every transfer of land whether by way of sale, gift, exchange, assignment, surrender, bequest, creation of trust or otherwise made on or after 26.9.1970, except a bona fide transfer made before 1.1.1973, shall be deemed to have been made in order to defeat the provisions of this Act and shall not be recognized or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to a person:— (2) The burden of proving the transfer to be bone fide shall be on the transferor." "16 Vesting of surplus land.—(1) As from the date of service of the final statement on a person, the surplus land held by him and shown in the final statement shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and the same shall from the said date vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. (2) When any land is vested in the State Government under Sub-section (1), the person holding such land shall within thirty days from the date of vesting, surrender or deliver its possession to the State Government by placing it at the disposal of the Tehsildar within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situate. Provided that the authorised officer may extend the period of surrender or delivery of possession of land to allow harvesting of crop standing on the land on the date of its vesting in the Government. Provided that the authorised officer may extend the period of surrender or delivery of possession of land to allow harvesting of crop standing on the land on the date of its vesting in the Government. (3) If any person refuses or fails to surrender or deliver possession of the land vested in the State Government within the time specified in Sub-section (2), he shall be deemed to be a trespasser on such land liable to ejectment therefrom and to the payment of penalty in accordance with Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 18 or in any other provisions of this Act, where any transfer of land is not recognised or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to the transferor under Sub-section (1) of Section 6, surrender of surplus land vesting in the State Government shall be made by the transferor out of the land remaining with him after the transfer and the balance of surplus land remaining, if any, shall be recovered from the transferee by his ejectment. In case surplus land or any portion of it is recovered from the transferee, the price paid by him for such land or portion thereof shall be deducted from the amount of acquisition payable to the transferor and shall be paid to the transferee to an extent not exceeding such amount of acquisition." "18. In case surplus land or any portion of it is recovered from the transferee, the price paid by him for such land or portion thereof shall be deducted from the amount of acquisition payable to the transferor and shall be paid to the transferee to an extent not exceeding such amount of acquisition." "18. Selection of land within ceiling area.—(1) A person holding or acquiring land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him shall have the right to select any land within the ceiling limit which he wants to retain in his possession and such right shall be exercised by specifying the land so selected in the return required to be furnished under this Act and if the area of land declared surplus in the draft statement is in excess of the one shown in the return, he may, in the objections to be filed by him to the draft statement, exercise his option in so far as this excess is concerned, to chose which of the lands held by him should be surrendered:— Provided that if such person has not made the selection of the land to be retained by him before the commencement of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, he may, by an application in writing make the selection within fifteen days from such commencement or within fifteen days from the date of service of final statement, whichever is earlier and in that case the final statement, if already prepared under Section 13 shall be modified accordingly and shall be served and published in accordance with that section:— Provided further that where a person holds or acquires land of which some are encumbered and some are not, the selection under this section, so far as practicable; be made in favour of encumbered land in preference to unencumbered land. (2) In making a selection under Sub-section (1) such person may also select land for the separate unit:— Provided that the land selected for the separate unit, after adding the land held by such unit shall not exceed the ceiling areas applicable to such unit." (20). (2) In making a selection under Sub-section (1) such person may also select land for the separate unit:— Provided that the land selected for the separate unit, after adding the land held by such unit shall not exceed the ceiling areas applicable to such unit." (20). Thus, according to the provisions of Section 6, the transfers of land made on or after the cut off date are deemed to have been made in order to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act, and are not to be recognised or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to the person concerned. Meaning thereby that for the purposes of determining the ceiling area, all such lands, transfer whereof has not been recognised, are, by fiction of law, treated to be the lands continuing to be held by the person proceeded against under the ceiling law. Then surplus land vests in the State Government under Section 16, and according to Sub-section (4) thereof notwithstanding anything contained in Section 18 etc., where any transfer is not recognised, or taken into consideration in determining the ceiling area applicable to the person concerned, the surrender of surplus land is to be made by the transferor out of the land remaining with him, and the balance of surplus is to be recovered from the transferee by ejectment. Thus, it also makes it clear, that the balance of surplus land is to be recovered from the transferee, obviously, treating that land to be the land held by the person proceeded against under ceiling law, as if that was also the land continued to be held by him/her. Then under Section an option is available to the person concerned, to be exercised in the prescribed manner. And according to the Second proviso to Sub-section (1) where a person holds or acquires land of which some are encumbered and some are not encumbered, the selection, so far practicable is to be made in favour of encumbered land in preference to unencumbered land. This time again, the encumbered land is, by fiction of law, treated to be the land held by him. (21). This time again, the encumbered land is, by fiction of law, treated to be the land held by him. (21). The obvious consequence of the above legal provisions, and the sequence of things is, that unencumbered land may have been resumed, leaving the encumbered land in favour of the appellant, which had already been sold, or otherwise alienated by her, before the relevant date and on that count, she may be laying a claim, that as a matter of fact, as on the date she does not hold any land, but then, the fact does remain, that in view of the above legal position, for all intent and purposes, it has to be assumed, that the appellant does hold that land, upto the permissible ceiling limit, being the land, allowed in the ceiling proceedings, to be retained by her. That being the position, even within the meaning of Section 5 (26-A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, it cannot be said, that the appellant "does not hold any land" so as to become landless person. (22). Then, we may take up the submissions made on the anvil of the heading of Section 21 which is "Allotment of vested land to landless persons", on the basis of which, it was contended, that the allotment is required to be made to landless persons. In our view, the heading of the section itself is not the decisive factor, when the language of section is otherwise more than clear. Section 21 as a whole reads as under:— "21. Allotment of vested land to landless person.—The surplus land vested in the State Government under Section 16 shall after reserving such extent of surplus land as may be considered necessary by it for purposes directed towards the promotion of agriculture welfare of agricultural population and economic development of the area be allotted on priority basis amongst, landless labourers of the village particularly to the members of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes by such authority, in such manner, to such extent and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed." (23). From a reading of Section 21, it is clear, that it comprehends various species of landless people, like landless labourers particularly members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, and so on, and all these species collectively, are part of the genus landless person. From a reading of Section 21, it is clear, that it comprehends various species of landless people, like landless labourers particularly members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, and so on, and all these species collectively, are part of the genus landless person. Therefore, the heading of the section, by itself, does not show, that the allotment is required to be made, to the landless person, as intended to be contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The species of the landless person have obviously been specified. Then, the things have further been elaborated in Rule 17, which has been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 38 of the Act, and thereunder, various categories of landless persons, have been held to be entitled to be allotted lands, to different extent. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, that since the heading of the section is regarding allotment of vested land to landless persons, therefore, alone the appellant is entitled to the allotment of land. (24). Thus, considering the matter even from the stand point of the objective of the Act, in our considered opinion, it cannot be conceded, that simply because, a person, who did hold a particular amount of land, so as to disentitle him to any allotment of land, under the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970, in accordance with the provisions of which the allotment is to be made, under the Rules, by virtue of Rule 17(1), happens to alienate the land, in whatever, manner, and then that person should be allowed to contend to be landless person. If that were to be permitted, it would open floodgates for trading, by all and sundry, inasmuch as, everyone may even get the land allotted, then sell it away, and then again stand in queue, as landless person. Present is a case, where admittedly, the appellant was holding good amount of land, so much so that it exceeded the permissible ceiling limit, and admittedly she has sold, or otherwise alienated the land. Thus, it is her own creation, by alienating the land, that she wants to lay a claim as landless person. Present is a case, where admittedly, the appellant was holding good amount of land, so much so that it exceeded the permissible ceiling limit, and admittedly she has sold, or otherwise alienated the land. Thus, it is her own creation, by alienating the land, that she wants to lay a claim as landless person. As the object of the Act is, to get over the concentration of the land in the hands of few persons, and to make it available for distribution to landless persons, this the object cannot be allowed to be defeated indirectly, by recognising the persons like the appellant, to be landless person, who alienated the land which were held by them. (25). Thus, in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly found that if such kind of fraud is permitted, then it will be doing injustice to those persons, and disservice to the purpose, with which this Land Ceiling Act was brought into force. (26). Now instead of leaving at that, we would also like to consider the provisions of Rule 17, in the alternative; assuming for the sake of argument that even if the appellant was found to fall in Clause (e), how would it have affected the impugned orders. (27). A bare perusal of Sub-rule (1) shows, that the allotment is to be made in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment of Land for Agricultural Purposes) Rules, 1970 in non-project areas, and in accordance with the rules or statement of conditions issued under the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 in project areas. This is one aspect of the matter. Then, according to Sub-rule (2), land to the extent of 75% of the surplus land vested in the State Government, after deducting the lands allotted to landless persons, as defined in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (3), if any, is to be reserved for allotment to the landless labourers of the village, belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and to certain other categories of persons. Significantly the persons included in category, prescribed by Sub-rule (3)(a) are the persons, who are in possession of land transferred to them, by persons, whose lands have vested in the State under the Act, and who are residents of the village Panchayat, in the jurisdiction of which the land is situated, or residents of the village Panchayat, in the jurisdiction of which the land is situated, or residents of a village Panchayat which adjoins such a village Panchayat, in the order of priority as prescribed. Thus, the first priority that is given is, to the persons who happened to be the transferee from the persons whose lands have come to be vested in the State Government. Obviously by virtue of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, where under certain categories of transfers are not recognised, for the purpose of calculating the land held, for calculating the ceiling area. Obviously those lands are deemed to be the lands of erstwhile holder; and taking them to be his land, in the event of that being resumed to the State Government, by virtue of Rule 17(3)(a) such transferees have the first priority in accordance with Rule 17(3)(a). Then, thereafter, after the allotment of land to such persons to the admissible extent, and according to the priorities, out of the remaining land, 75% of the land is to be reserved in accordance with Sub-rule (2). Then thereafter, whatever land remains, the allotments are to be made in the order of priority, as given in the subsequent clauses of Sub-rule (3) sequentially, and in this sequence, the appellant claims to be falling under Clause (e). (28). Then thereafter, whatever land remains, the allotments are to be made in the order of priority, as given in the subsequent clauses of Sub-rule (3) sequentially, and in this sequence, the appellant claims to be falling under Clause (e). (28). Obviously, for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the appellant to be allotted land in accordance with Rule 17(3)(e), the basic facts, which are required to be shown by the appellant are, as to what was extent of land available, having been resumed, as surplus land, then out of that, what was the extent of land allotted to the persons falling under Rule 17(3)(e), then after deducting the reservations contemplated by Sub-rule (2), what was the extent of land, remaining available for allotment to the persons in the categories (b) onwards of Rule 17(3), and then, it has to be shown, that after making allotments to all categories of persons falling upto Clause (d), the land did remain available for being allotted to the persons falling in Category (e). (29). Considering the record from this stand point, what we find is, that the Allotment Committee had made allotments vide order dated 25.11.1976, and significantly, the appellant has not produced the copy of that order, and we are at a loss to comprehend, as to what were the reasons given therein, and on what basis that order proceeds. May be, that we do not feel inclined to dismiss the writ petition on this ground of non- production of material document, but then, the fact remains, that the document has not been produced. (30). However, the appellant has produced as Annexure-1, the copy of the order of the Collector, Sirohi dated 27.9.1977, which was passed in the appeal filed by the present appellant, against the said order dated 25.11.1976. It is again a different story, that the appellant has not produced copy of any of the memo of appeals. Be that as it may. From perusal of Annexure-1, it transpires, that the whole thrust of the appellant, in assailing the order dated 25.11.1976 was, that the proceedings of the Allotment Committee do not bear the signature of the Pradhan of Abu Road, and Tehsildar Abu Road. Be that as it may. From perusal of Annexure-1, it transpires, that the whole thrust of the appellant, in assailing the order dated 25.11.1976 was, that the proceedings of the Allotment Committee do not bear the signature of the Pradhan of Abu Road, and Tehsildar Abu Road. The other allegation was, that the Allotment Committee did not make allotment on the site, but made it by sitting in the Municipalitys Officer at Abu Road, then the next contention raised was, that the provisions of Rule 17(3) have not been complied with, and that, because the appellant being landless agriculturist, was entitled to priority. By this order, the appeal was accepted in part, and the allotments made, were cancelled. However, regarding the appellant, it was held, that the provisions made in Rule 17(3) is, for the bona fide transferee, and not for the transferor, and since the appellant is a person who has transferred the land, she is not entitled to any priority. It was also found, that the object of the Rules is, that the person who has purchased the land in good faith should be given priority, as he is not at that fault as the seller is. (31). Then, against this order the appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue, and even before the Board of Revenue no such details, or facts were disclosed, so as to show, that the land did remain available, capable of being allotted to the persons falling in Category 17(3)(e). (32). Apart from the question, as to whether the appellant falls in that category or not? As noticed above, in support of the appeal, all that was submitted before the Board of Revenue was, about the appellant being a landless person as she claimed to be not holding any land, and reference in this connection was made to the provisions of Section 5 (26-A) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In our view, in absence of these facts, being there to show, that any part of the land did remain available, after making allotment of land to the persons falling in categories up to categories 17(3)(d), the remaining exercise, would admittedly be, an exercise in futility. (33). In our view, in absence of these facts, being there to show, that any part of the land did remain available, after making allotment of land to the persons falling in categories up to categories 17(3)(d), the remaining exercise, would admittedly be, an exercise in futility. (33). The other important aspect of the matter is, that vide Annexure-1 the Collector had set aside the allotments made by order dated 25.11.1976, and obviously thereafter allotments of land must have been made by the competent authority, and thought the writ was filed in the year 1986, even in the writ petition, the appellant did not disclose the facts, that after making the allotments, whether by order dated 25.11.1976, or subsequently, consequent upon order Annexure-1, any land did remain available for being allotted to the persons falling in category 17(3)(e). (34). Thus, considering from any stand point, we do not find any force in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.