ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board') whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holding Act, 1973 ('the Act') against the judgment of Additional Collector dated 9.2.1988, whereby 12.93 standard Acres land has been ordered to be acquired has been dismissed. 2. The proceedings against Tiku Ram were dropped under the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('Old Ceiling Law') by order dated 22.10.1975. The proceedings were reopened under Section 15(1) of the Act and by order dated 2.9.1988, the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the transfers made by the petitioner to several persons were in contravention of the provisions of the Ceiling Law and consequently, came to the conclusion that as on the cut off date, the petitioner was in possession of land ad measuring 12.932 Standard Acres in excess of the Ceiling Limit. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'). The Board by its judgment dated 9.1.1990 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner; the petitioner filed SBCWP No.784/1990, which writ petition was decided by order dated 10.9.1997, wherein while 5 transfers made by the petitioner, were held by this Court as not recognisable under the provisions of the Old Ceiling Law and consequently, the Court did not interfere with the said order of the Board to that extent. 4. Where after, the Court qua one transfer pertaining to 16 Bigha land on 22.11.1965 in favour of Ganesh Singh, observed and directed as under :- "The only question now remains of transfer of 16 bighas of land on 22.11.65 in favour of Ganesh Singh for a consideration of Rs.1000/-. The reasons which have been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue are (i) that the transfer was not bona fide (ii) that the purchaser was not landless agriculturist (iii) that the consideration is inadequate and (iv) that the purchaser was not having the land less than 30 acres. The reasons which have been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue are (i) that the transfer was not bona fide (ii) that the purchaser was not landless agriculturist (iii) that the consideration is inadequate and (iv) that the purchaser was not having the land less than 30 acres. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 30-DD it is not the requirement that purchaser should be landless person and the provisions of Section 30-DD overrides all provisions of Section 30-D, therefore, it is not necessary that transfer in favour of landless person alone is to be recognised. It is also submitted that in respect of other objections raised by the Board of Revenue, evidence was submitted and the Board of Revenue was not justified in coming to the conclusion that such a transfer would not be recognised. I have considered over the matter. So far as the contention that transfers which are to be recognised under Section 30-DD in favour of agriculturist upto thirty first day of December, 1969 is concerned, it may be observed that this Section does not contemplate that purchaser should be a landless person. The only thing required is that he should be agriculturist and domiciled in Rajasthan. Both these considerations are fulfilled. The question whether the consideration was inadequate and was bona fide one or the purchasers were not having the land in excess of the ceiling limit is a question of fact. It is stated that evidence was produced by the petitioner and the Addl. Collector has referred in his order, certain affidavits which were not considered by the Board of Revenue. Looking to the over all circumstances, I consider that Board of Revenue should examine this matter as to whether the transfer of 16 bighas of land on 22.11.1965 is liable to be recognised in accordance of provisions of Section 30-DD. The evidence already on record will be considered and if the petitioner is entitled for the relief, the same would be given to him. The order of the Board of Revenue is set aside only in respect of 16 bighas of land only and fresh order would be passed by the Board of Revenue in accordance with the observations made above, and keeping in view the provisions of law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations." 5. The order of the Board of Revenue is set aside only in respect of 16 bighas of land only and fresh order would be passed by the Board of Revenue in accordance with the observations made above, and keeping in view the provisions of law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations." 5. After the matter was remanded back to the Board by above order, the Board re-decided the appeal on 5.8.2000 and qua the land ad measuring 16 Bigha transferred on 22.11.1965, while dismissing the appeal, it was observed as under :- "5. After thoughtful examination of the submission made by the rival parties I am of the view that since appellant has sold khasra no.1732 measuring 16 bighas to one Ganesh for Rs.1000/- though it was made within the period of section 30DD but appellant has not cared to prove it prima facie that whether this sale was bona fide or whether purchaser was landless or was having land upto ceiling limit applicable to him excluding the purchased land. Besides this it is also significant to note that 16 bighas of land was sold only for Rs.1000/-. These all factors in cumulative effect prima facie shows that this transfer is not bona fide. Under these circumstances the above referred sale is not recognised." 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court while remanding the matter to the Board specifically laid down that provisions of Section 30-DD does not contemplate that the purchaser should be a landless person and directed the Board, to re-decide the said validity of the transfer after taking into consideration certain affidavits, which were earlier not considered by it. However, in the order impugned, the Board has again observed that the purchaser was not a landless person and the affidavits filed by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration at all and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Further submissions were made that a bare look at the affidavits filed along with the writ petition & Annex.-2 to 5 and statement of Chandra Das as Annex.6, it is apparent that the transfer in favour of Ganesh Singh was valid and deserved to be recognised under the provisions of the Ceiling Law and the determination made by the Additional Collector and Board in this regard deserves to be set aside. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the order passed by the Board. It was submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove that the consideration paid was adequate and that the transfer was bona fide and therefore, the Board was justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The Additional Collector in his order dated 2.9.1988 qua the transfer dated 22.11.1965 laid great emphasis on the fact that the transferee was not landless person and the second reason indicated was that the consideration of Rs.1000/- for 16 Bigha land did not appear to be sufficient. 11. The petitioner had before the Additional Collector filed his own affidavit and that of Chain Singh, Basti Ram, Mohan Singh (transferee) and statement of Chandra Das was recorded. Basti Ram and transferee - Mohan Singh specifically asserted in the affidavit that in the year 1965 when the transfer took place, the market value of the land was as disclosed in the sale deed. When witness Chandra Das appeared in the witness-box and was cross-examined, not a word was put to him qua the alleged inadequacy of the consideration. 12. When the matter was remanded back by this Court, specific observations were made that the section does not contemplate that purchaser should be a landless person and the Board was required to examine the evidence available on record, however, a perusal of the finding as quoted herein-before would reveal that the order passed by this Court has not been taken into consideration whereby again observations have been made that the transferee was not a landless person and the evidence, which was required to be considered under the directions of this Court has not at all been adverted to by the Board. 13. As already noticed herein-above, the Additional Collector only made a one line observation that the consideration does not appear to be adequate without dealing with the affidavits which had come on record and / or making any observations / recording any reason for reaching to the conclusion that the consideration was inadequate. 14. The affidavits filed are categorical in nature and one witness which was produced by the petitioner before the Additional Collector was not put a single question in cross-examination qua adequacy of the consideration. 15. 14. The affidavits filed are categorical in nature and one witness which was produced by the petitioner before the Additional Collector was not put a single question in cross-examination qua adequacy of the consideration. 15. In view thereof, there was no reason for the Additional Collector to come to a conclusion that the consideration was inadequate and the observations/finding in this regard is perverse. 16. As already noticed herein-before, despite remand by this Court requiring the Board to reconsider the evidence available on record, the Board has simply reiterated its earlier finding without looking into either the direction issued by this Court and / or the record available before it. 17. In view thereof, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 2.9.1988 qua the transfer deed dated 22.11.1965 executed in favour of Ganesh Singh and the order dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Board cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 2.9.1988 (Annex.7) passed by the Additional Collector, Pali to the extent of land ad measuring 16 Bigha transferred vide registered sale deed dated 22.11.1965 in favour of Ganesh Singh and to that extent ordering acquiring of land in excess of ceiling limit and order dated 5.8.2000 (Annex.9) passed by the Board are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.