Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by four writ petitioners assailing the validity of the order dated 7.7.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur and the order dated 16.2.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue, praying for their quashment and seeking a declaration in favour of the petitioners that the registered gift deed dated 30.3.1968 executed by late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji in favour of late Smt. Nandbai, widow of Shri Bhanwar Singhji, be declared as valid and further that the land covered by the said gift deed may not be included as the property of said Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji and that the land sold out to Rameshwar Lal and Bhanwar Singh, sons of Vijai Singh, be not deemed as agriculture land of the deceased Maji Sahiba. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to re-adjudicate and re-determine the acquisition of land under the ceiling law by excluding the land covered by aforesaid gift deed. 2. The writ petitioners have asserted that late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji widow of late Shri Thakur Bhawani Singhji, Resident of Village Chandnoli, Tehsil Bonly, District Sawaimadhopur, had a chunk of agriculture land in the said village as also in village Bharthala, District Tonk. The total land area measured upto 104 standard acres. The SDO, Sawaimadhopur had earlier initiated the acquisition proceedings against the said Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act of 1973'), but the same was dropped by order dated 26.5.1975 as in his view no surplus land was found in her hands. It was thereafter that the State Government vide order dated 6.7.1983 reopened the case and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur for fresh adjudication under Sec. 15(1) and 15(2) of the said Act. The Additional Collector by order dated 15.11.1988 determined 421 bighas 17 biswa of land in excess with late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji for being acquired. This order was challenged before the Board of Revenue by the petitioners. The Board vide aforesaid judgement dated 3.1.1992 accepted their appeal and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur for fresh determination. This order was challenged before the Board of Revenue by the petitioners. The Board vide aforesaid judgement dated 3.1.1992 accepted their appeal and remanded the matter back to the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur for fresh determination. He thereupon issued fresh order in ceiling case No.1/92 on 7.7.1994 but did not recognise the transfer of land covered by registered gift dated 30.3.1968 admeasuring 86 bigha 7.5 biswa as valid transfer holding that it was executed with an intention to defeat the provisions of the Act of 1973. Regarding transfer of the Agriculture land admeasuring 45 bigha 5 biswa by unregistered sale deed dated 17.7.1963 and 10.3.1964 to Rameshwar and Bhanwar Singh respectively, it was held that this purchase cannot be treated as bona fide as neither the purchasers were agriculturists, now were the transfers made by registered sale deed. 3. According to the petitioners, Smt. Nand Bai was widow since childhood and was since then leading a miserable and starving life. Since Smt. Nand Bai became widow during her childhood, the aforesaid land was gifted to her so that she could maintain herself. Considering that Smt. Nand Bai was sister of the husband of Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji. Late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji therefore gifted 86 bigha and 7.5 biswa land to Smt. Nand Bai, widow of late Shri Bhanwar Singhji by means of registered sale deed dated 30.3.1968 and actual physical possession was also transferred. Mutation No. 120 dated 1.2.1971 was entered by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 30.3.1968 in the name of Smt Nand Bai by Gram Panchayat Bhadoti. The certified copy of the mutation has been place on record. Smt. Nand Bai was not a family member of late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji. She continued to deposit the land revenue till she expired in the year 1980. Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji expired in the year 1993. The present petitioners were substituted in her place by virtue of her Will. Smt. Nand Bai executed a registered Will in favour of Smt. Hitlar Kanwar and Smt. Nonand Kanwar. Mutation was attested in their names and they are having possession of the land. Their affidavits were also submitted on 3.3.1993. The present petitioners were substituted in her place by virtue of her Will. Smt. Nand Bai executed a registered Will in favour of Smt. Hitlar Kanwar and Smt. Nonand Kanwar. Mutation was attested in their names and they are having possession of the land. Their affidavits were also submitted on 3.3.1993. Regarding 5 bigha and 9 biswa of land, a separate mutation was opened as the khasra No. 824 was in joint name of late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji and some other person, who had half share each in the said khasra. Smt. Nand Bai was in the physical possession of the gifted property since 1958. Gift deed was attested by Shri Rajaram, Sub-Registrar, Shri Hari Singh, Patwari, Shri Bhanwar Singh, Sarpanch and Shri Deen Dayal, Deed Writer. All these witnesses were present when the gift deed was drafted and executed by power of attorney holder of Maji Sahiba, Shri Durga Mahesh Singh. 4. Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has argued that the gift deed dated 30.3.1968 was registered gift deed, a fact not disputed by the respondents. This gift deed was executed by Durga Mahesh Singh, power of attorney holder of Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji. Both the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur and the Board of Revenue have committed serious error of law in not recognising a valid registered gift deed, at page No. 1 whereof the endorsement was made by the then Sub-Registrar Rajaram and Bhanwar Singh, Sarpanch and Hari Singh, Patwari, who also put their signatures on the same. Deen Dayal, who scribed the deed, has also put his signature. Learned senior counsel has referred to definition of "attested" as given in Section 3 of the Transfer of property Act. It was argued that the respondents have not denied the existence of gift. There is no reason for not recognising the same. The Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue have wrongly held that the gift deed was not attested on 30.3.1968. In fact, mutation entry No. 120 was attested on the basis of said gift deed in favour of Smt. Geeta Bai. There was no reason to hold that no possession was taken over by the donee. Even the land sold under unregistered sale deed to Ramehwar Lal and Bhanwar Singh in the year 1964 respectively ought to have been recognised. 5. There was no reason to hold that no possession was taken over by the donee. Even the land sold under unregistered sale deed to Ramehwar Lal and Bhanwar Singh in the year 1964 respectively ought to have been recognised. 5. It was argued that the proceedings under the old ceiling law was finalised by the SDO against the said Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji in ceiling case No. 105/171, who vide order dated 31.12.1976 allowed her to retain 30 standard acres of lands and ordered for acquisition of 14 standard acres of lands. When she filed appeal against the said order before the Collector, Sawaimadhopur, who by order dated 20.6.1977 remanded the matter to the SDO with direction that decision may be given under both old ceiling law and new ceiling law. In compliance of the judgement of the Collector, Sawaimadhopur, the SDO decided the case of Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji vide order dated 19.9.1977 and declared nine and half acres of lands as surplus under the new ceiling law. The Collector, Sawaimadhopur thereupon referred the case to the Government for reopening under Section 15(1) and 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act. The State Government ordered the reopening of the case vide order dated 16.7.1983 and authorised the Additional Collector. The Collector by order dated 15.11.1988 declared 421 bigha and 17 biswa i.e. 263.6 acres of land as surplus. Aggrieved thereby, Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji filed appeal before the Board, who vide order dated 3.1.1992 accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector with direction that the matter to the Additional Collector with direction that the matter be disposed of under the old ceiling law as per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government), Rules, 1963. The Additional Collector served notice and draft statement under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1963, supra on late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji. In doing so, the Additional Collector has illegally not recognised the gift deed dated 30.3.1968 and the transfers made in favour of Rameshwar and Bhanwar Singh. 6. Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur has wrongly treated the land situated in village Chandan Holi, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur as semi fertile zone because the other lands situated in Tehsil Newai are identified as semi fertile land, which is not factually correct. 6. Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur has wrongly treated the land situated in village Chandan Holi, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur as semi fertile zone because the other lands situated in Tehsil Newai are identified as semi fertile land, which is not factually correct. The calculation of the standard acres of holdings of an assessee under the old ceiling Act has to be made on the basis of classification of soil as entered in the jamabandi of notified date i.e. 1st April, 1966. If the lands of Chandan Holi were not treated semi-fertile, this would make lot of difference in the ultimately computed standard acres. Learned senior counsel has referred to the entries made in the mutation register with reference to the lands of Chandan Holi at Annexure-8 and has pointed out that except three khasras, most of the khasras are either banjar or barani avval, which fact is further corroborated from jamabandi of Svt. 2030-2033 and subsequent jamabandis also upto Svt. 2047-2050. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the division bench judgment of this Court in Ram Pratap & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. RLR 1988 (2) page 520. It is argued that Board of Revenue even though accepted the argument in principal, but has rejected the same only by observing that though it is a fact that in the soil classification, Tehsil Bonli is not included in the category of semi fertile, but the petitioners failed to prove as to what difference will it make to the computation of standard acres. 7. Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for petitioners argued that gift deed was a registered document and therefore there is a presumption of its genuineness under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that a registered document is not required to be proved by production of an attested witness unless the execution of the same is denied by the executeant. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar vs. Nathulal & Anr. (2001) 5 SCC 46 . It is argued that gift can be accepted either expressly or impliedly. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar vs. Nathulal & Anr. (2001) 5 SCC 46 . It is argued that gift can be accepted either expressly or impliedly. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgements in Smt. Shakuntla Devi vs. Amar Devi- AIR 1985 Himachal Pradesh 109 and Sabba Mohan Banerjee vs. Manmohan Banerjee and Ors. AIR 1933 Calcutta 488. Since Nand Bai took possession and mutation has also been attested in her favour, this has to be inferred that she accepted the gift. The SDO in the initial order was fully justified in recognising that gift. Learned counsel relied on judgement of the Supreme Court in Smt. Shakuntala & Ors. vs. State of Haryana- (1979) 3 SCC 226 and argued that gift is not a transfer and as such also the provisions of Section 30D of the old ceiling law would not be attracted in the case of gift of agricultural land. There is nothing in law to debar registration of deeds acting as attesting witness as was done by the Sub-Registrar in the present case. Reliance in this connection is placed on judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurnam Singh vs. Smt. Ass Kaur And Ors. - AIR 1977 (P & H) 103. It was denied that the gift deed dated 30.3.1968 has been executed by Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji to defeat the provisions of ceiling law. Besides, the case of Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji was that Smt. Nand Bai had become widow during her youth and the land has been gifted to her to arrange for her maintenance as widowed daughters are entitled to get maintenance out of the property in the hands of their heirs. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that since the possession was handed over to both transferees Rameshwar and Bhanwar Singh, they are entitled to defend their possession as per Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. 8. Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners referred to the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979 and argued that sub-section (2) of Section 15 thereof provides that six years was the outer limit for reopening of a case. As per the judgment of division bench of this Court in Dhanraj & Ors. Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners referred to the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979 and argued that sub-section (2) of Section 15 thereof provides that six years was the outer limit for reopening of a case. As per the judgment of division bench of this Court in Dhanraj & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan RRD 1995 page 115, the outer limit of six years should be counted from the date of Amending Act of 1976 and not from the principal Act. Learned counsel argued that even if not in the writ petition, petitioner have in their rejoinder raised an additional ground that this order dated 16.7.1983 is barred by limitation and therefore the same should be quashed. It was argued that the order of State Government dated 18.6.1983 directing reopening is barred by limitation as the State Government has ordered to reopen the judgement dated 31.12.1976 passed by SDO under the old ceiling law and the judgement dated 19.9.1977 was passed by the SDO under the new ceiling law. The limitation for reopening the ceiling case under the new ceiling law is 4 years from the date of final order or 3 years from the 15th day of August, 1975, whichever is later and the period of limitation under old ceiling law is 6 years from the commencement of the new ceiling law i.e. 1.1.1973. It was mandatory for the State Government to prove that the action of going, passing or flowing out was to be completed before the specified date. Reliance in this connection is placed on division bench judgement of this Court in Mohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - AIR (1990) Rajasthan 156 = RLW 1990(1) Raj. 526. Learned senior counsel also relied on the judgments of this Court in Dhanraj & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan RRD 1995 page 115 (HC), Gumani Shankar vs. State & Ors. - 2006(1) WLC page 348 and Kishan Singh vs. Rajasva Mandal, Ajmer-2006 WLC (UC) page 322 to argue that the reopening in the present case was barred by period of limitation. 9. vs. State of Rajasthan RRD 1995 page 115 (HC), Gumani Shankar vs. State & Ors. - 2006(1) WLC page 348 and Kishan Singh vs. Rajasva Mandal, Ajmer-2006 WLC (UC) page 322 to argue that the reopening in the present case was barred by period of limitation. 9. Learned senior counsel argued that the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979 has by amendment in clause (a) of Section 2 extended the period of limitation upto 6 years from the date of final order in relation to the period from 1st day of January, 1973 to 8th day of April, 1978. Since the final order in this case was passed on 31.12.1976, therefore, this date would fall between 1st January, 1973 and 8th April, 1978. The period of seven years, which is prescribed in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Amendment Act of 1979 would cover the case between 8th day of April, 1978 to 13th day of August, 1978 and therefore this clause which substituted the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 15 prescribing seven years as the limitation, would not be applicable to the present case. 10. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel while opposing the writ petition argued that there was neither any pleading, nor any prayer for quashing the order of reopening as being time barred in the memo of writ petition. Such a prayer was made for the first time in the rejoinder, which cannot be entertained. Learned counsel argued that the gift deed in the present case was admittedly made on 30.3.1968, much after the appointed date i.e. 1.4.1966 and therefore it was rightly held that the gift deed was made to defeat the ceiling proceedings. Besides, this would also apply to two sale deeds, which even otherwise, cannot be recognised as being unregistered. 11. Learned Additional Government Counsel denied that six years is the outer period of limitation. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 which provides limitation of six years was by substitution made 7 years. Even otherwise, no such argument was made before the Additional Collector or the Board of Revenue. This argument being raised for the first time before this Court, cannot be entertained. Learned Additional Government Counsel cited judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in Banshidhar & Ors. Even otherwise, no such argument was made before the Additional Collector or the Board of Revenue. This argument being raised for the first time before this Court, cannot be entertained. Learned Additional Government Counsel cited judgement of the Full Bench of this Court in Banshidhar & Ors. vs. State - AIR 1977 Rajasthan 46 and argued that according to law laid down therein proceedings governed by the old ceiling haw have to be decided by the old ceiling law only. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. As per ratio of the judgement of Full Bench in Banshidhar, supra, if the proceedings for determination of ceiling and surplus area of landholder were commenced under that law prior to repeal and was pending when new Act came into force, such proceedings would be governed by old law even after repeal of Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and must be determined thereunder. It was held therein that on interpretation of Section 15 of the Act of 1973 as amended in 1976, pending cases have to be governed under old law. If the proceedings have to be reopened and re-decided afresh under the provisions of repealed law to determine the ceiling area under Chapter III-B, they must be decided under the old law. Section 30D of the old ceiling law provided that for the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under Section 30C, any voluntary transfer effected by him on or after 25.2.1958, otherwise than by way of partition or in favour of landless person before the said date and continued to be so till the date of transfer, shall be deemed to be transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of the said Chapter. In the present case, the Additional Collector has in relation to that provision found that the late Maji Sahiba Sardar Kanwar Ranawatji according to jamabandi of Svt. 2013-2016 had 346 bigha and 4 biswa of land i.e. 104 standard acres in her hands as on 25.2.1958. As per the notification of the government dated 11.2.1966, the appointed date for fixation of ceiling limit with reference to Section 30E is 1st April, 1966. Admittedly, in the present case, the gift deed was executed on 30.3.1968, which date falls subsequent to both the aforesaid dates. As per the notification of the government dated 11.2.1966, the appointed date for fixation of ceiling limit with reference to Section 30E is 1st April, 1966. Admittedly, in the present case, the gift deed was executed on 30.3.1968, which date falls subsequent to both the aforesaid dates. Therefore, it is not required to be gone into whether registration of the deed was proper or not because if the law does not recognise the transfer, that would be suffice for the purpose of deciding the question under ceiling law. For the same reason therefore the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act may not be available to transferees namely Rameshwar and Vijay Singh. Moreover, the so called sale deeds do not convey any title because they were not registered. Even otherwise, they are alleged to have been executed on 17.7.1963 and 10.3.1964 in favour of Ramehwar and Bhanwar Singh respectively, both of which dates again falls after 25.2.1958 with reference to Section 30D and 1.4.1966 with reference to Section 30E.Both the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue have not committed any error in upholding the order of the competent authority that those transfers were intended to defeat the provisions of ceiling law and were therefore not recognisable. 14. Adverting now to the question of limitation, there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the division bench in Dhanraj, supra that the period of six years has to be counted from the date of commencement of the Amending Act. The words used "commencement of this Act" in the amended Section 15(2) denotes the Amending Act and not the Principal Act. According to the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979, as originally enacted, the limitation for reopening the ceiling case under new ceiling law is four years from the date of final order or three years from 15th August, 1975, whichever is later. The period of limitation under the old ceiling law is six years from the commencement of the new ceiling Act i.e. 1.1.1973. Issuance of notice before passing of the order of reopening is necessary. The period of limitation under the old ceiling law is six years from the commencement of the new ceiling Act i.e. 1.1.1973. Issuance of notice before passing of the order of reopening is necessary. As per Section 15 of the New Ceiling Act, it was mandatory for the State Government to prove that the action of going, passing or flowing out must have been completed before the specified date as held by division bench of this Court in Mohan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. - AIR 1990 Rajasthan 156. 15. Argument of Shri K.K. Mehrishi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that since 30th December, 1976 is the date from which the period of limitation of six years with reference to Section 2(a) of the Amendment Act of 1979, should begin and his submission, if six years would expire on 31st December, 1982 and the order of the Government for directing to reopen the ceiling case having been passed on 18.6.1983, it would be barred by period of limitation. This submission cannot be accepted because in the present case admittedly the SDO has originally decided the matter on 31.12.1976 recognising the gift deed as well as transfers. Aggrieved thereby, appeal was filed by Maji Sahiba Ranawatji before the Collector, who by order dated 30.6.1977 remanded the mater to the SDO and SDO again decided the ceiling case of Maji Sahiba Ranawatji under old ceiling law on 19.9.1977. If the period of 6 years is counted from 19.9.1977, the limitation would be available to the respondent-State upto 19.9.1983. Admittedly, the order has been passed by the State Government on 18.6.1983 and, therefore, the show cause notice must have been issued much therebefore. Even if therefore we accept the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that limitation should be taken as six years and not seven years, the order passed by the State Government would fall within the limitation. Even then, contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that six years should commence from 31.12.1976, the original order passed by the SDO, cannot be accepted because that order in appeal stood merged with the order of the Collector dated 20.6.1977, who remanded the matter to the SDO. The SDO again decided the order afresh on 19.9.1977. The limitation has to be counted with reference to subsequent order and not the earlier order. The SDO again decided the order afresh on 19.9.1977. The limitation has to be counted with reference to subsequent order and not the earlier order. The objection as to limitation is therefore also rejected. 16. As regards the argument that Tehsil Bonli is not included in the category of semi fertile, reference is made to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government) Rules, 1963, which inter alia provides that for the purpose of determining ceiling area, the assessment circles or assessment groups formed, or deemed to have been formed, under Section 149 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, shall be grouped into ceiling groups as shown in Annexure 1 to these rules, and the ceiling area in respect of the various soil-classes mentioned in column 2 of Part A of the said Annexure, shall be that shown in column 3 to 7 of the same part against group in which the villages mentioned in column 2 of Part B of the said Annexure, have been placed. In Section 30C of Chapter III-B of old ceiling law, the ceiling area for a family consisting of five or less than five members shall be thirty standard acres of land. The explanation to Section 30C provides that a `standard acre' shall mean the area of land which, with reference to its productive capacity, situation, soil classification and other prescribed particulars, is found in the prescribed manner to be likely to yield ten maunds of wheat yearly, and in case of land not capable of producing wheat, the other likely produce thereof shall, for the purpose of calculating a standard acre be determined according to the prescribed scale so as to be equivalent in terms of money value of ten maunds of wheat. 17. It is thus evident that the computation of standard acres would vary on the basis of soil classification of the land for deciding the ceiling limit of the assessee and the surplus land with reference to the appointed date i.e. 1st April, 1966 as prescribed by Section 30E of the old ceiling law. This would be based on an enquiry made by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 12 of the said Rules of 1963. This would be based on an enquiry made by the competent authority in accordance with Rule 12 of the said Rules of 1963. The Board of Revenue in the present case has not accepted the contention of the State that Bonli Tehsil is not included in those Tehsils, which have been on the basis of soil classification of land categorised as semi-fertile, was not justified in still holding that this would not make any difference in computation of standard acres. Besides, in computation of standard acres in the present case, this mistake appears to have been crept in, as different parcels of the lands of the assessee were situated in different Tehsils viz- Tehsil Bonli as well as Tehsil Newai of District Tonk. The soil of the land of Tehsil Newai was classified as semi fertile and on that basis, soil of the land of Bonli Tehsil has been taken to be semi fertile, which could not be legally done. I am fortified in taking this view from the division bench judgement of this Court in Ram Pratap supra. 18. In the result, this writ petition partly succeeds. It is held that the order reopening the ceiling case of the petitioners was passed within the limitation prescribed by proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 1979, but the computation of standard acres by the Additional Collector in his order dated 7.7.1994 requires reconsideration. While therefore upholding the impugned orders on other aspects, the matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector for fresh determination on the basis of actual soil classification of the lands of village Chandan Holi, Tehsil Bonli and to pass fresh order within three months from the date copy of this order is produced before him. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part with no order as to costs.