JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein. 2. The matter has a chequered history. The appellant disposed of the property under the old law by oral agreement in the year 1955. The facts of the case are that the facts concisely stated are that in ceiling proceedings initiated against Motilal (petitioner herein) in respect of his agricultural land situated in village Raithal. Tehsil Mangrol District Kota, (now in District Baran), 30 bighas & 18 biswas of his land was declared surplus vide order dt.22/1/1979, thereby Motilal submitted option to surrender 30 bighas & 18 biswas of land out of Khasra No.9 of his village Raithal, to which Mathuralal (respondent No.5, herein) raised objection stating that he had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1958 and so it was an encumbered land. But, the Assistant Collector Baran, after having considered respondent No.5's objections and heard the petitioner rejected the objections vide his order dt.28/2/81(Ann.A), and directed the Tehsildar Mangrol to take possession of the land in dispute. Against order (Ann.A) rejecting objections, the respondent No.5 preferred an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional Collector (ceiling) Kota vide order dt.27/12/82(Ann.B), resulting in filing second appeal by the respondent No.5 before the Revenue Board, which by its order dt.25/8/88(Ann.C) accepted the second appeal while setting aside orders (Anns.A&B) of the Authorised Officer and the appellate Authority (Ceiling) and accordingly the Asstt. Collector (Authorised Officer) was directed to acquire unencumbered land in lieu of the land in dispute which stood transferred in favour of Mathuralal. However, the petitioner preferred a review petition challenging order dt.25/8/88(Ann.C) of the Revenue Board which allowed the review petition under order dt.29/8/89(Ann.E) by quashing its earlier order dt.25/8/88 and thereby second appeal was directed to be reheard. Collector (Authorised Officer) was directed to acquire unencumbered land in lieu of the land in dispute which stood transferred in favour of Mathuralal. However, the petitioner preferred a review petition challenging order dt.25/8/88(Ann.C) of the Revenue Board which allowed the review petition under order dt.29/8/89(Ann.E) by quashing its earlier order dt.25/8/88 and thereby second appeal was directed to be reheard. Ultimately second appeal was reheard after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but vide its judgment dt.19/12/89(Ann.F), the Revenue Board allowed second appeal holding that Mathuralal ought to have been given opportunity of hearing in view of Section 12(3) and therefore, his appeal was maintainable and consequently, the position remained that orders of the Authorised Officer and the Ceiling Appellate Authority dt.28/2/81 *27/12/82(Ann.A &B) stood quashed & set aside and resultantly the Revenue Board in its order dt.19/12/89(Ann.F) directed the Authorised Officer to take proceedings in accordance with law for unencumbered land. Hereagain, review petition was preferred by the petitioner challenging second appellate order dt.19/12/89(Ann.F) on the grounds that respondent No.5's appeal was not maintainable as he had not assailed original assessment order of declaring surplus land. However, the Revenue Board by its order dt.15/5/90(Ann.4) dismissed petitioner's second review petition holding it as not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition at hand assailing validity of second appellate order dt.19/12/89(Ann.F) and order in review petition dt.14/5/90(Ann.H). This writ petition albeit was dismissed by this Court under its judgment dt.05/07/1991, but the Apex Court remanded back under an order dt.23/11/92 in Civil Appeal No.4946/92(arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15256/91 directing this Court to decide the question of validity of the transfer in favour of Mathuralal and thereafter decide the question if there was any surplus land with the appellant (Motilal) exceeding the ceiling limit. As per the Apex Court, this court in earlier order dt.5/7/91, failed to determine the question whether the land transferred in favour of Mathuralal was valid transfer or not. Hence, fate of this writ petition in its second inning hinges on the crucial question as to whether transfer of the land in dispute made in favour of Mathuralal was valid or not. After remand writ petition was allowed to be amended and accordingly to which relief sought by the petitioner is to (I) quash & set aside order dt.22/1/79(Ann.K) of the Asstt. After remand writ petition was allowed to be amended and accordingly to which relief sought by the petitioner is to (I) quash & set aside order dt.22/1/79(Ann.K) of the Asstt. Collector Baran to the extend it decided the question of validity of transfer in favour of the respondent No.5; (b) declare 30 bighas & 18 biswas of land in dispute transferred by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.5 in the year 1958 as recognised U/s 30DD of Chapter IIIB of the Tenancy Act thereby to that extent the land is liable to be deducted from total holdings of the petitioner and thereafter the ceiling are to be determined. 3. Earlier he has approached this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 5th July, 1991 has dismissed the appeal. However, against the interim order, the present appellant approached the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court vide order dated 23rd November, 1992 passed following order :- "The High Court in this case has failed to determine the question whether the land transferred in favour of Mathura Lal was valid transfer or not. The above question ought to have been decided by the High Court before dealing with the question as to how much land is in excess of the ceiling limit in possession of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court with a direction to decide the question of validity of the transfer in favour of Mathura Lal and thereafter decide the question if there was any surplus land with the appellant exceeding the ceiling limit." 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court with a direction to decide the question of validity of the transfer in favour of Mathura Lal and thereafter decide the question if there was any surplus land with the appellant exceeding the ceiling limit." 4. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the appeal memo wherein it has been contended as under :- "For that it is also an admitted position that the land which had been in possession of the transferee since 1955 was recognised by the State of Rajasthan and khatedari rights were conferred on him vide mutation dated 22/4/1967, the mutation which was made on 22/4/1967 in the revenue records, when rendered in English, reads as under :- "It is verified that the Khatedar Moti Lal transferred land of his khatedari No.9 measuring 30 bighas 18 biswas and lagani in favour of Mathura Lal son of Ram Nath Meena resident of Nawalpura on account of his possession since 1955 transferred and verified in favour of Shri Mathura Lal. Mathura Lal is also consenting to it. Therefore it may be entered in the khata." 5. Counsel for the appellant has also taken us to Section 30D & Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under Chapter III-B which reads as under :- Section 30D. Mathura Lal is also consenting to it. Therefore it may be entered in the khata." 5. Counsel for the appellant has also taken us to Section 30D & Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under Chapter III-B which reads as under :- Section 30D. Certain transfers not to be recognised for fixing ceiling are under Section 30C.- (1) 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 the 25th Day of February, 1958, otherwise than-- (i) by way of partition, or (ii) in favour of a person who was a landless person before the said date and continued to be so till the date of transfer, of the whole or a part of his holding shall be deemed to be a transfer calculated to defeat the provisions of this Chapter and shall not be recognised and taken into consideration; and the burden of proving whether any such transfer falls under clause (i) or clause (ii) shall lie on the transferor; Provided that if by way of any such transfer as is mentioned in clause (ii) land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to the transferee has been transferred to him, such transfer to the extent of such excess shall not be recognised or taken into consideration for the purpose of this sub-section; Provided further that no such transfer as is mentioned in clause (ii) shall also be so taken into consideration or recognised if it has been made after the 9th day of December, 1959. (2) Every such transfer as is mentioned in sub-section (1) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force in the whole or any part of the State, be not enforceable as against the State Government in respect of any land forming the subject matter of such transfer and coming to the State Government under section 30E. (3) Notwithstanding the provision contained in sub-section (2), the transferee of the land referred to therein shall be entitled to claim from the transferor thereof a refund of the consideration money, if any, paid by him for such land and the amount thereof shall be charge on the compensation money payable by the State Government in respect of such land under section 30G. (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to the lawful letting or sub-letting respectively of khudkasht land or a tenant's holding or any part of either. Section 30DD. Certain transfers to be recognised- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 30D, for the purpose of determining the ceiling area in relation to a person under section 30C, - (i) every transfer of land not exceeding thirty standard acres made by a person upto the thirty first day of December, 1969 in favour of an agriculturist domiciled in Rajasthan or in favour of his son or brother intending to take to the profession of agriculture and capable of cultivating land personally and who had attained the age of majority on or before the said date; and (ii) every transfer to the extent as aforesaid made by a person before the first day of June, 1970 of land comprised in groves or farms of the nature referred to in clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 30J as it stood prior to the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1970 and acquired before the first day of May, 1959 in favour of his son or brother fulfilling the conditions mentioned in clause (I) and who attains the age of majority on or before the first day of the aforementioned dates shall also be recognised." 6. He contended that in view of the provisions of Section 30D and 30DD, transactions which are prior to 1958 and December, 1969 or June 1970 are required to be exempted under Section 30DD. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 30DD and seriously committed an error in rejecting the writ petition inspite of Supreme Court directions to decide the question of validity of transfer in favour of appellant. 7. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 30DD and seriously committed an error in rejecting the writ petition inspite of Supreme Court directions to decide the question of validity of transfer in favour of appellant. 7. Counsel for the appellant has also taken us to the order dated 22nd January, 1979 passed by Executive Magistrate wherein it has been observed as under :- ^^vizkFkhZ [kkrsnkj eksrhyky vkRet xksj/ku /kkdM fuoklh jk;Fky tks Ñf"k tksrksa ij vf/kdre vifBr vf/kfu;e tks fd blds ckn bl fu.kZ; esa u;s lhfyax vf/kfu;e ds uke ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxk dh /kkjk AA ds vUrxZr uksfVl fn;s tkus ij ,oa rRi'pkr iqjkus lhfyax fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 10 ds vUrxZr uksfVl fn;s tkus ij vizkFkhZ }kjk izfrmRrj uksfVl ls o nLrkostkr ,oa 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;s x;s gSaA rnksijkUr rRdkyhu ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 4-10-75 dks vizkFkhZ dks u;s lhfyax vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ds f}rh; ijUrqd ds vUrxZr 30 LVS.MMZ ,dM+ Hkwfe dk vf/kdkjh ekurs gq, 45-05 LVS0 ,dM+ Hkwfe ds vf/kxzg.k dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA mDr vkns'k ds fo:) vihy izLrqr djus ij vfrfjDr ftyk/kh'k] dksVk ds vkns'k fnukad 19-6-77 }kjk muds fu.kZ; esa mYysf[kr rRoksa dh jks'kuh esa iqu% U;k;ksfpr fu.kZ; ysus gsrq bl vifBr dks fjek.M fd;k x;k gSA la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gSa fd fnukad 25-2-58 dks vizkFkhZ ds ikl 114-32 vifBr ftlesa fd 75-04 ,dM Hkwfe FkhA vizkFkhZ }kjk crk;k x;k gS fd mlus fnukad 20-1-51 dks 73 ch?kk ,d fcLok Hkwfe vius iq= dUgS;k yky------- Jherh j?kqukFkh ds ikl mlds gh laj{k.k esa jgrk gS] t;sZ bUrdky ua0 7 xzke iapk;r jk;Fky }kjk [kkrs ca/kok;k FkkA blh izdkj 19 ch?kk 17 fcLok Hkwfe Jhefr j?kqukFkh csok xksj/ku tks fd vizkFkhZ dh eka FkhA ds [kkrs t;sZ bUrdky uEcj 5 xzke iapk;r jk;Fky }kjk djok;k x;kA blh izdkj fnukad 22-4-77 dks t;sZ bUrdky la[;k 77 rglhynkj ekaxjksy {kjk jk0VS0 ,DV dh /kkjk 19 ds vUrxZr lu~ 1955 ds dCtk [kkus ds dkj.k 30 ch?kk 18 fcLok Hkwfe ij eFkqjk yky vkRet jke ukjk;.k fuoklh uoy iqjk rglhy ekaxjksy dks [kkrsnkjh iznku dh xbZ gSA eksrhyky }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd [k0 ua0 9 esa ls 7 ch?kk] [k0 ua0 934 esa lsA ch?kk rFkk dUgS;k yky ds [kkrs dh Hkwfe [kljk ua0 1375 esa ls 3 ch?kk Hkwfe ugj esa pyh xbZ gSA bl izdkj dqy 11 ch?kk Hkwfe vokIr dh tk pqdh gSA Jheku~ vfrfjDr ftyk/kh'k dksVk ds fu.kZ; fnukad 29-4-77 esa vafdr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj bl izdj.k esa eksrhyky dh ikfjokfjd fLFkfr ds vfrfjDr mlds }kjk eFkqjk yky vkRet jke ukFk ds i{k esa fd;s x;s gLrkUrj.k dh cksukQkbZM rFkk dUgS;k yky dh fnukad 1-1-73 dks O;Ldrk dh tkap fd;k tkuk gSA tgka rd dUgS;k yky dh O;Ldrk dk iz'u gS fjiksVZ rg0 dh vuqlkj fnukad 1-1-73 dks dUgS;kyky dh vk;q 22 o"kZ FkhA eksrhyky }kjk izLrqr fjVuZ esa Hkh fnukad 1-1-75 dks dUgS;kyky dh vk;q 22 o"kZ vafdr gSA fjek.M ds i'pkr~ vk;q ds leFkZu esa pUnz 'ks[kj 'kekZ iz/kkuk/;kid u'kuy cky fudsru esgjk iM+k] dksVk ds c;ku djk;s x;s gSa rFkk ewy izos'k jftLVj dks Hkh iznf'kZr djk;k x;k gS izekf.kr Ldwy fyfoax lkfVZfQdsV ,Dth0Mh0 A ls Hkh dUgS;k yky dh vk;q frfFk 6-1-51 Li"V gS tks fd Ldwy ds ,ujksyesUV jftLVj ds vuqlkj gS o mlds i`"B la[;k 2 o izos'k ua0 98 lu~ 65&66 ij ntZ gSA izLrqr lk{; }kjk nLrkostkr ds fojks/k esa rg0 ekaxjksy }kjk dksbZ fook/kd izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj fnukad 1-1-73 dks dUgS;k yky dh O;Ldrk fufoZokn gS blfy, vizkFkhZ vius O;Ld iq= dUgS;k yky ds fy, vyx i`Fkd bdkbZ ds fy, 30-17 ,dM+ Hkwfe j[kus dk vf/kdkjh gSA dUgS;k yky miyC/k fjdkMZ rFkk c;ku iUuk yky ls fnukad 20-1-59 ls gh eksrh yky ls vufHkK gksdj mldh nknh Jhefr j?kqukFkh ckbZ ds ikl jgrk Fkk rFkk vyx ls dk'r djrk Fkk bl izdkj iqjkus lhfyax dkuwu ds varxZr Hkh dUgS;kyky vius [kkrs dh Hkwfe dks vius ikl i`Fkd :i ls j[kus dk vf/kdkjh gSA tgka rd eFkqjk yky vkRet jkeukFk ehuk ds i{k esa fd;s x;s gLrkUrj.k dk lEcU/k gS fjgkbZ vkns'k ds vuqlkj mldh cksukQkbZM dh tkap vko';d gSA bl n`f"Vdks.k ls [kkrsnkj eksrhyky }kjk [kjhnnkj eFkqjk yky ds i{k esa dksbZ jft0 foys[k i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkSj u gh ,sls nLrkost dk vfLrRo gh crk;k x;k gSA i=koyh esa layXu bUrdky 72 xzke jk;Fky esa rglhynkj }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd eFkqjk yky lEcfU/kr Hkwfe ij 1955 ls dkfct gSA fdl gSfl;r ls dkfct gS ;g bUrdky esa ntZ ugha gSA eFkqjk yky Lo;a vius gyQukesa esa lEcfU/kr Hkwfe ij viuk dCtk lu~ 1958 ls crk;k gS o eksrhyky vius gyQukesa ls bldk leFkZu djrk gSA eFkqjk yky vius gyQukesa esa ;g fl) djrk gS fd mlus 1958 esa lEcfU/kr Hkwfe dks eksrhyky ls 4]000@& :0 esa [kjhnk FkkA bl voLFkk esa Vh0 ih0 ,DV dh /kkjk 54 rFkk jftLVsª'ku ,DV dh /kkjk 17@49 ds izko/kkuksa ds dkj.k gLrkUrj.k lEcU/kh jft0 foØ; i= viuh gfUi;k tks u dsoy izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS oju~ gLrkUrj.k lEcU/kh fdlh nLrkost dk fy[kk tkuk Hkh ugha crk;k tkrk gSA bl dkj.k bl cspku dk vfLrRo lafnX/k gksus ls bls cksukQkbZM ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA 8. He contended that the transaction was accepted and entry was corrected in favour of the third party. In that view of the matter, the appellant was not in possession of the land. In that view of the matter, for the revenue purpose transfer has been accepted, after the remand order, the Division Bench vide order dated 20th April, 2009, has directed as under :- "In the interest of justice, we direct the Assistant Collector-cum-Authorized Officer, Baran to issue notice to all the parties referred above more particularly the present appellant, Mathura Lal S/o Shri Ram Nath, resident of Nawalpura, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran and the concerned SDO and Tehsildar under whose supervision the land in question is situated and after taking necessary evidence in regard to alleged transfer/sale of the land in question by the appellant to Mathura Lal and the circumstances under which the mutation was made in favour of Mathuralal, make a report to this court in the present appeal with all the relevant material collected by him as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months. The appellant is directed to supply copies of the earlier orders passed by the Authorized Officer as also the Board of Revenue and the judgments of this court as also the Hon'ble Supreme court within 15 days. Office to send copy of this order to Assistant Collector-cum-Authorized Officer, Baran as also District Collector, Baran urgently for necessary compliance." 9. The appellant is directed to supply copies of the earlier orders passed by the Authorized Officer as also the Board of Revenue and the judgments of this court as also the Hon'ble Supreme court within 15 days. Office to send copy of this order to Assistant Collector-cum-Authorized Officer, Baran as also District Collector, Baran urgently for necessary compliance." 9. Pursuant to which report dated 3rd November, 2009 has been given reads as under :- ^^eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk eh.kk ,oa eksrhyky iq= xksj/ku /kkdM fuoklh jk;Fky rglhy ekaxjksy dks t;sZ uksfVl ryc fd;k x;kA ftuds }kjk tokc izLrqr fd;k x;kA rglhynkj ekaxjksy ls oLrq fLFkfr dh fjiksVZ pkgh xbZ] nksuksa i{kdkjksa ds tokc ,oa rglhynkj ekaxjksy dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj xzke jk;Fky dh vkjkth iqjkuk [k-ua-9 jdck 30 ch?kk 18 fcLok Hkwfe [kkrsnkj eksrhyky iq= xksj/ku /kkdM jk;Fky us eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk eh.kk fuoklh uoyiqjk dks cspku djuk crk;k gS] ijUrq cspku ukek izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA rglhynkj dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj mDr Hkwfe ukek0 la[;k 72 fnukad 22-04-67 ls [kkrsnkj eksrhyky ds ctk; ;g Hkwfe Jh eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk eh.kk fuoklh uoyiqjk ds uke 1955 ds dCtk gksus ds dkj.k dCts ds vk/kkj ij eksrhyky /kkdM ds ctk; eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk tkfr eh.kk ds uke [kkrs ntZ dh xbZ gSA Jheku lgk;d lekgrkZ ckjka ds fu.kZ; fnukad 22-01-79 ds rgr eksrhyky ls xzke jk;Fky [ka-ua- 9 jdck 30 ch?kk 18 fcLok Hkwfe lhafyx ds rgr vf/kxzg.k dh xbZ] ftls ukek0 la[;k 255 fnukad 8-10-79 ls flok;pd [kkrk ntZ gqbZA eFkqjkyky ds }kjk vihy djus ij mi[k.M vf/kdkjh us vius i= Øekad 2190 fnukad 17-11-90 ls [k-ua-9 ftlds u;s [k-ua- 6 jdck 2-98 gS0 ,oa [k-ua- 8 jdck 1-76 gS0 dqy 4-74 gS0 lhafyx ls eqDr gksdj eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk eh.kk fuoklh uoyiqjk ds uke ukek0 la[;k 5 fnukad 12-12-1990 ls [kkrs ntZ gqbZ gSA orZeku jktLo fjdkWMZ tekcanh laor~ 1965&68 gky [k-ua- 6 jdck 2-98 gS0 ,oa [k-ua- 8 jdck 1-76 gS0 dqy fdrk 2 jdck 4-74 gS0 eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk tkfr eh.kk fuoklh uoyiqjk ds uke [kkrs esa ntZ gSA nksuksa i{kdkjksa }kjk dksbZ cspku nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ukek0 la[;k 72 fnukad 22-4-67 ls ;g Hkwfe dCts ds vk/kkj ij eFkqjkyky iq= jkeukFk eh.kk fuoklh uoyiqjk ds uke ntZ gqbZ gSA bl izdkj i{kdkjksa ds tokc ,oa rglhynkj ekaxjksy dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj Hkwfe cspku ds ctk; dCts ds vk/kkj ij [kkrs esa ntZ gqbZ gSA layXu % nLrkost 1- ukek0 la[;k 72 fnukad 22-04-67 xzke jk;Fky 2- ukek0 la[;k 5 fnukad 25-11-90 xzke jk;Fky 3- ukek0 la[;k 4 fnukad 12-12-90 xzke jk;Fky 4- ukek0 la[;k 255 fnukad 08-10-79 xzke jk;Fky 5- tekcanh la[;k laor~ 2065&68 xzke jk;Fky 6- [kkrk la[;k 304] 354 10. Pursuant to which counsel for the appellant contended that the transaction and everything are recorded in favour of the third party and the transaction is accepted for all purposes. 11. Counsel for the respondents has taken us to Section 5, 9, 53A, & 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which reads as under :- "Section 5. "Transfer of property" defined.-In the following sections "transfer of property" means an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future, to one or more other living persons, or to himself, 1[or to himself] and one or more other living persons; and "to transfer property" is to perform such act. 1[In this section "living person" includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing herein contained shall affect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by companies, associations or bodies of individuals.] Section 9. Oral transfer.-A transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law. Section 53A- Part performance.-Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 2[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.] Section 54. "Sale" defined.-''Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made.-3-Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.-A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. 12. We have heard counsel for both the sides. 13. Before proceeding with the matter, it may be observed that no doubt the transaction is prior to 1958 but in view of the provisions of Section 9 that oral transaction under the Transfer Property Act may be made not in every case but there is to be writing in express which is required. Counsel for the appellant is not in position to show anything on record that writing is not required for transfer of property and he relied on the order dated 26th February, 1981 where the transaction has been accepted on receipt of the amount and property was transferred and subsequent report of the Collector pursuant to the order of Division Bench and his contention is that the transafer is affected. We have closely gone through the provisions of Section 30D and 30DD. The transfer of property in the present case will be governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 unless it has been defined under the Local Act. 14. In our considered opinion, the encumbered property cannot be transferred without any connivance. Admittedly, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the identical issue under the Rajasthan Agriculture Ceiling Act (Mahesh Kanwar & Anr. vs. State & Ors., (2003) 1 WLC 560 (Raj.) ) has held as under :- "49. 14. In our considered opinion, the encumbered property cannot be transferred without any connivance. Admittedly, the Division Bench of this Court while considering the identical issue under the Rajasthan Agriculture Ceiling Act (Mahesh Kanwar & Anr. vs. State & Ors., (2003) 1 WLC 560 (Raj.) ) has held as under :- "49. Encumbrance can be over the land; title in which continue to vest in holder, but it suffers from burden of rights vesting in other persons in respect of such holdings. In the context of the setting of this provision which is primarily to respect transactions which the holder has entered into creating rights against him in respect of such holdings which may amount to interest in land like transfer by way of mortgage or lease or may not amount to interest in land like creation of charge or existing easements in favour of owner of dominant tenement. Word 'encumbered' has been used in much wider sense than mere creation of an interest in land, which is short of ownership as has been contended before us by the petitioner. 50. The verb 'encumber' in its wider sense has been stated in The Oxford English Dictionary to me transaction to act as a clog or restraint upon. So also word 'encumbered' has been stated to mean 'burdened'. Black's Law Dictionary has explained the meaning of encumbrance. "Any right to, or interest in, land which may subsist in another to the diminution of its value". 51. The same meaning has been assigned to word 'encumbrance' in Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition). Apparently, an encumbrance is not confined to creation of right in land but it has been referred to Include right to land which subsists in a person other than the present and that results in diminution of its value. 52. In view of aforesaid discussion and keeping in view that obligation, is cast on the holder to surrender unencumbered land and not the encumbered land in the first instance, the expression 'encumbered' must relate to buy-den or clog on right of the holder to deal with the holding in question which results in a clog or restraint on his rights in relation to such holdings as a result of any transaction made by him. Once we come to conclusion that rights created under Section 53A in favour of transferor are encumbrance or burden or clog or restraints the rights of transferor in relation to exercise of his rights-in relation to land against the transferees is an 'encumbrance' within the meaning of Section 30E(2) of the Act of 1955 or Section 18 of the Act of 1973, there is no impediment in reaching further conclusion that such an obligation of holder can be enforced and State can also be compelled to give effect to it. A Division Bench of this Court in Ifhtekar Ali v. State of Rajasthan (3) had said : "The question is, as to whether the State Government could compel him to offer unencumbered land first and only when the same was acquired then the balance of surplus land has to be recovered from the transferee. That appears to be clear from Section 30-E(2) second proviso and Sections 16(4) and 18 of the New Ceiling Law." By giving effect to this, the Court ultimately directed that the land of the petitioner would be released and unencumbered land of the assessee would be taken possession of. Thus obligation was enforced." 15. In that view of the matter, we are considered opinion that the transfer envisaged under the act has not taken place. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and no interference is called for. 16. The appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.