JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 12.1.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No. 59/1994 Sawai Madhopur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manish Sharma submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed an appellant error on the face of record in as much as it had considered three sale deeds/gift deeds executed prior to 31.12.1969 and has given reduction thereof, however, has not even given any finding about other transfers made by Hadi Ji details thereof, had been given by the appellant before the Board of Revenue. 3. Advancing his argument, he has drawn attention of this court, towards application under Section 151 read with Order 41, Rule 27 filed by the appellant (Annex.-6 with the writ petition) wherein categorical details of 11 transfers affected by way of registered sale deeds/transfer deeds were given. Mr. Pareek contended that all these registered deeds were executed prior to 31.12.1969, and the copies of the sale deed were also submitted, in pursuance of the directions given by the Board, during the course of hearing on 6.3.1997. The details of such transfer is given here under:- rkjh[k jft0 cSp ua0 Xkzke jdck ch0 fcLok0 ---- foLokeUlh [kjhnus okys dk uke 31-03-68 ciqbZ 70 16 00 guqeku flag iq= f'kojktflag 30-03-68 67 18 00 ckywjke iq=jkedokj 31-03-68 09 12 00 txnh'k iq= thoudky 30-03-68 58- 08 00 izHkq iq=NksVwjke tkfrlk/k 24-08-65 03 10 00 fgjkyky iq= dksfj;keh.kk 24-08-65 04 11 00 fd'kuxksiky iq= dksfj;kehuk fg 01@2] ukjk;.kflag iq= lqxuflag] :iflag iq= uSuflag 30-03-68 01 17 00 :xukFkflag] eksguflag 13-05-65 01 00 00 dY;k.kflag iq= eksrhehuk fg0 1@2 ------ ------ 9- 11 00 :iflag iq= pSuflag 13-10-65 epjSyk 10 17 00 teU;kiq= xksfoUnk fNrj dtksM iq= HkksY;k fgLlk 1@2 31-03-68 20- 00 00 xtjktflag iq= vfMlkyflag izgyknflag iq= NksVwflag 31-03-68 5- 10 00 yyrknsoh iRuh jkes'oj 4. Learned counsel for the Mr. Manish Sharma; after reading the judgment impugned dated 12.1.2000; pointed out that the learned member of the Board of Revenue had in principle agreed with the contention of the appellant that the transfers made prior to 31.12.1969 by way of sale or by way of gift, have to be excluded while calculating the excess land and the land covered by those transfer deeds have to be deducted from the holding of the assessee. He contended that yet; the Board had given deduction in relation to only two transfer deeds, viz 124.11 bigha given in gift to daughter in law Kisan Kanwar, and 26.05 bigha gifted to Baljit Singh (minor). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the learned member of the Board has given no reduction of the land measuring 15 bighas and 15 biswas in khasra No.935, which had been auctioned by the Government, for recovery and its arrears. 6. Learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Dharmendra Pareek submitted that the order of the Additional Collector, Sawai Madhopur takes into account all the material available on record, including the transfer deeds said to have been affected prior to 31.12.1969. Mr. Pareek submitted that the assessing officer had properly considered the entire material and passed a well reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. He urged that learned assessing officer, while passing the order dated 31.7.1992 omitted to give deduction of some of the eligible transfers effected prior to 31.12.1969, which ultimately has been given by the Board of Revenue, hence the order of the Board is just and proper. He further argued that this court in its supervisory jurisdiction should not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Board of Revenue. 7. I have considered the rival submissions & perused the record. On perusal of the order impugned dated 12.1.2000, I find that learned member of the Board has given reduction of transfers made prior to 31.12.1969 in relation to two gift deeds only and has not delved upon or given any finding in relation to other transfer deeds, particulars and copies whereof; had been produced by the appellant before the Board vide the application under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 8. On careful reading of the order impugned, this court finds substance in the arguments advanced by Mr. Sharma that the order impugned suffers from manifest error of not considering the relevant material available before the Board. 9. A bare reading of the order impugned, shows that the learned member of the Board has not given any pronouncement about the other transfers affected by way of registered deeds, which have been placed by the petitioner, before the Board. 10. 9. A bare reading of the order impugned, shows that the learned member of the Board has not given any pronouncement about the other transfers affected by way of registered deeds, which have been placed by the petitioner, before the Board. 10. In present factual matrix, this court is of considered opinion that the order impugned dated 12.1.2000 passed by the Board deserves to be set aside to the extent, it does not deal with the remaining transfer deeds placed by the petitioner-appellant before it. The matter is, therefore, remanded back of the Board of Revenue, to pronounce upon the other transactions of sale or gift by way of registered transfer deeds, said to have been executed prior to 31.12.1969. It is made clear that this court has not pronounced upon the petitioner's rights to claim deduction in relation to the remaining transfer deeds. It will be open for the Board of Revenue to decide the petitioner's rights to claim deduction under Section 30 D and 30 DD of the Ceiling Act 1973, in relation to each of the transfer deeds, in accordance with law. 11. The Board of Revenue will also decide the issue relating 15 bighas and 15 biswas land in khasra No.935, which is said to have been auctioned by the Government, for recovery of its dues. 12. The matter is remitted to the Board of Revenue, with the aforesaid directions. Parties to appear before the Board on 6.3.2017 and the Revenue Board will decide the appeal on then day or any other date, as per its convenience. Writ petition allowed, as indicated above.