Judgment TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under section 230 read with section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 3.3.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority Kota. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the revision are that the authorised officer and Assistant Collector Kota by his judgment dated 25.4.1975 declared 7.25 standard hectares of land as ceiling surplus leaving 30 standard acres of land with khatedar Hardev son of Buli Lal Meena of village Lohawat Tehsil Piplda (District Kota) against whom ceiling proceedings were initiated under the Old Ceiling Law pertaining to restriction on holding land in excess of ceiling area contained in Chapter III-B of the Act. Thereafter State Government vide its order dated 2.7.1980 reviewed the order 25.4.1975 of the authorised officer and re-opened the case for re-assessment under section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973 (in short `New Ceiling Act'). In pursuance of this order dated 2.7.1980 of the State Government, Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota reinitiated ceiling proceedings against the khatedar Hardev son of Buli Lal and vide his judgment dated 24.3.1990 declared 7.24 standard acres of land as surplus under the New Ceiling Act. This order dated 24.3.1990 of Additional Collector was challenged in second appeal before Board of Revenue in which learned Single Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 15.10.1992 rejected the appeal. In the meantime after declaration of the disputed land as government land being ceiling surplus, it was allotted under rule 17 read with 20-A of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules 1973 to the petitioners who had subsequently acquired khatedari rights in this land. But undeterred by all these developments daughter and sons of original ceiling affected person Hardev filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Kota on 5.1.1996 against the impugned order dated 25.4.1975 of the authorised officer and Assistant Collector Kota. Revenue Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 25.4.1975 of authorised officer and Assistant Collector Kota by his judgment dated 3.3.1999, aggrieved against which this revision has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel of rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are the lawful allottees of the disputed government land which was declared as ceiling surplus by the competent authorised officers. 3. I have heard the learned counsel of rival parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are the lawful allottees of the disputed government land which was declared as ceiling surplus by the competent authorised officers. After allotment of the land petitioners have also acquired khatedari rights but they were not impleaded in the appeal filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority directed against the order dated 25.4.1975 of the authorised officer- which was no longer in existence as it got merged in the order dated 24.3.1990 of Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota after re-opening of the case under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act. This order dated 24.3.1990 remained unchanged in the appeal filed before the Board of Revenue which dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 15.10.1992. All these facts were kept deliberately concealed from the Revenue Appellate Authority. Revenue Appellate Authority unmindful of the orders dated 24.3.1990 of Additional Collector and 15.10.1992 of Board of Revenue set aside the order dated 25.4.1975 of Assistant Collector, which was no longer in existence independently, after lapse of 24 years. Thus a time barred appeal was allowed and non-existent judgment was dismissed by the impugned order. It was also argued that the ceiling affected person Hardev is still alive but he did not appeal against the impugned order dated 25.4.1975; on the contrary in the reply filed before Additional Collector Kota in the re-opened case he had stated that the order dated 25.4.1974 was just and proper needing no intervention. 5. Countering the arguments of the petitioners, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 argued that the son of ceiling affected person Hardev, Bhawani Shankar was shown as 18 years in the return filed before the Additional Collector. The non-petitioners-appellants are sons and daughter of Hardev against whom ceiling proceedings were initiated and the disputed land wrongly declared ceiling surplus. This land should not have been acquired as this land was an ancestral land in which no n-petitioners No. 1 and 2 have inherent right since birth. They should have been treated as separate units but authorised officer wrongly included them in the primary unit of Hardev's family and passed the defective order dated 25.4.1975. This land should not have been acquired as this land was an ancestral land in which no n-petitioners No. 1 and 2 have inherent right since birth. They should have been treated as separate units but authorised officer wrongly included them in the primary unit of Hardev's family and passed the defective order dated 25.4.1975. It was also argued that the petitioners are only allottees of the disputed land and allottees have no right to revision and according to 1995 RRD 677 allottees are not necessary parties. On the point of delay in filing appeal, it was argued that Revenue Appellate Authority has given appropriate reason for condoning delay; as such there is no illegality on this count. So in view of the inherent right in the disputed land of the non-petitioners No.1 and 2 who were not treated as separate units, the judgment given by Revenue Appellate Authority is in accordance with law and should not be interfered with. 6. Vehemently opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3, the learned Government Advocate argued that the order dated 25.4.1975 was no longer in existence when Revenue Appellate Authority passed the impugned order on 3.3.1999, as the order dated 25.4.1975 got merged in the order of Additional Collector Kota who initiated ceiling proceeding under the New Ceiling Act on the direction of State Government under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act. This judgment of Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota was further re-affirmed by the order of Board of Revenue which by its judgment dated 15.10.1992 rejected the appeal of Hardev. It is also argued that Hardev himself did not challenge the order dated 25.4.1975 but cleverly got the appeal filed against a non-existent order by his sons and daughter before Revenue Appellate Authority who lacked jurisdiction in hearing this appeal as the ceiling proceedings initiated against Hardev was filed and finally decided under the New Ceiling Act under which the appeal lies only before Board of Revenue. Thus, the order dated 3.3.1999 is without jurisdiction and as such `nonest'. It was also argued that initially in the return filed before authorised officer (Assistant Collector) the age of Bhawani Shankar (son to Hardev) was shown as 8 years on 1.4.1966. All the sons to ceiling affected person were minor on 1.4.1966 and dependent on father-Hardev. Thus, the order dated 3.3.1999 is without jurisdiction and as such `nonest'. It was also argued that initially in the return filed before authorised officer (Assistant Collector) the age of Bhawani Shankar (son to Hardev) was shown as 8 years on 1.4.1966. All the sons to ceiling affected person were minor on 1.4.1966 and dependent on father-Hardev. As such they were correctly included in the primary unit of family comprising of five members. It was also argued that the appeal filed before Revenue Appellate Authority was grossly time barred and it should have been dismissed on that count only. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsels carefully gone through the impugned order dated 3.3.1999 and other related orders, and perused the documents available on the file. 8. It is apparent from the perusal of the record that in the ceiling proceedings initiated against Hardev first under the Old Ceiling Law and subsequently under New Ceiling Act on re-opening of the case by State Government under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act. Hardev was found to have 7.24 standard acres of surplus land worth-acquiring under the ceiling laws after leaving 30 standard acres for his primary nit of family comprising of 5 members. The final order of the authorised officer Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota was of dated 24.3.1999 which was challenged by ceiling affected khatedar Hardev (non-petitioner No. 3) before the Board of Revenue which by its judgment dated 15.10.1992 rejected the appeal. After re-opening of the case by the State Government under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act and subsequent judgment dated 24.3.1990 of Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota the order dated 25.4.1975 of Assistant Collector was no longer in existence as it got merged into the order dated 24.3.1990 of Additional Collector and subsequent judgment dated 15.10.1992 of Board of Revenue. In this way the ceiling case initiated against Hardev was conclusively decided after exhausting all the available avenues of appeals. But here, in this case, it seems, a legal trickery has been played in which sons and daughter of ceiling affected khatedar Hardev filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority against the order dated 25.4.1975 of authorised officer which was no longer in existence independently on the date of filing of appeal. But here, in this case, it seems, a legal trickery has been played in which sons and daughter of ceiling affected khatedar Hardev filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority against the order dated 25.4.1975 of authorised officer which was no longer in existence independently on the date of filing of appeal. It is also worth emphasizing that the appeal directed against the order dated 25.4.1975 was filed not by the ceiling affected person Hardev who is still alive but by his sons and daughter after almost 23 years. Perusal of the impugned order dated 3.3.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority shows apparent inconsistencies in respect of contention of delay. In this order it appears that Revenue Appellate Authority considered Bhawani Shankar (son to Hardev) as major on the date of initiation of ceiling proceedings under Old Ceiling Law and as such entitled for separate unit, but at the same time he also considered Bhawani Shankar to be minor on 1.4.1966 in respect whom the period of limitation was supposed to run from the date of acquiring majority. Both these findings are inconsistent and mutually exclusive. 9. Perusal of the return filed before Assistant Collector (authorised officer) shows Bhawani Shankar having age of 8 years as on 1.4.1966; the statement filed before Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota on 7.6.1975 shows age of Bhawani Shankar as 18 years. Both the returns corroborate same fact that Bhawani Shankar was minor on 1.4.1966-the first return before Assistant Collector shows age as on 1.4.1966 while second statement shows age as on 7.6.1975. Thus minor sons were correctly included in the family of ceiling affected father comprising of primary unit of five members. 10. Perusal of the file of Assistant Collector and of Additional Collector both show that it was not proved conclusively that disputed land was ancestral land. Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the disputed land was ancestral land, the petitioners being minor on 1.4.1966 and included in the five-member family of father were not entitled to a separate unit. Their notional share would also be clubbed with the land of ceiling affected father being included in the five members family. 11. Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the disputed land was ancestral land, the petitioners being minor on 1.4.1966 and included in the five-member family of father were not entitled to a separate unit. Their notional share would also be clubbed with the land of ceiling affected father being included in the five members family. 11. It is also strange to observe here that the petitioners who are allottees of the government land acquired as ceiling surplus and who subsequently acquired khatedari rights were neither impleaded as a party in appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority nor in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that allottees are not necessary party in this dispute is not tenable in view of the fact that the allottees are no longer allottees only but they have become khatedar tenants of the disputed land. And a khatedar tenant is a necessary party in a dispute relating to the land of which he has become khatedar. It is evident from perusal of the record that the non-petitioners have cleverly kept real facts pertaining to judgments of Additional Collector and Board of Revenue deliberately concealed from Revenue Appellate Authority and procured impugned judgment against an order which was no longer in existence independently. It is worth mentioning here that Hardev, in his reply before Additional Collector admitted as correct and concurred in the judgment dated 25.4.1975 of Assistant Collector. But contrary to this admission he got sons and daughter appeal against the same order in which he had concurred in. This cleverness and legal trickery cannot be lent support to. It is worth mentioning here that the order dated 25.4.1975 was challenged after 24 years in the year 1999. This inordinate delay was condoned by the Revenue Appellate Authority on flimsy ground like lack of knowledge of the impugned order. Such ground is frivolous and untenable in view of the fact that the ceiling affected person Hardev against whom ceiling proceedings were initiated had exhausted all the avenues of remedy and appeal. He is still alive and his sons could not have remained unaware of these facts of litigation which their father seriously pursued, and various judgments passed by the competent revenue courts of jurisdiction. Thus ground on which 24 years old time barred appeal was entertained is flimsy and unjustifiable which cannot be countenanced. He is still alive and his sons could not have remained unaware of these facts of litigation which their father seriously pursued, and various judgments passed by the competent revenue courts of jurisdiction. Thus ground on which 24 years old time barred appeal was entertained is flimsy and unjustifiable which cannot be countenanced. 12. In view of the above discussion and deliberation, this revision succeeds, the impugned order dated 3.3.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority Kota suffers from jurisdictional error as well as illegality and material irregularity and as such deserves to be quashed. 13. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 3.3.1999 of Revenue Appellate Authority Kota is quashed. Pronounced.