JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) for assailing the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court whereby the writ petition No.3676/1998 preferred by the respondents-petitioners was accepted. 2. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the material available on record. 3. By way of writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners being the legal representatives of Tulsa Ram and others, questioned the action of the respondents while acting under the provisions of the Ceiling Law acquiring the surplus lands in the hands of Chandan Singh, Sagat Singh, Kanwar Raj Singh and Gamer Singh pursuant to the ceiling proceedings, to the extent it included the land in respect of the writ petitioners, who had already acquired khatedari rights by virtue of the decree dated 25.10.1971. The case set up by the petitioners in the writ petition was that notwithstanding the findings recorded in the ceiling proceedings against the private respondents (including appellant herein), the decree passed by the revenue court of competent jurisdiction inter se between the parties is binding and the same cannot be treated to be non est on the basis of the observations made by the authorised officer in the ceiling proceedings. It was further contended by the writ petitioners that the private respondents having unencumbered land available in their hands, could not have surrendered the land in respect whereof the writ petitioners have acquired khatedari rights. The controversy was decided by the learned Single Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.551/2002 filed by the appellant herein and titled as Gulab Singh (the appellant herein) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (decided on 13.5.2016) wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- 9. It is true that under the Scheme of Chapter III B of the Old Ceiling Law, while determining the land in the hands of the assessee in excess of the ceiling limit unrecognized transfers are to be ignored. State of Rajasthan and Others (decided on 13.5.2016) wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as under:- 9. It is true that under the Scheme of Chapter III B of the Old Ceiling Law, while determining the land in the hands of the assessee in excess of the ceiling limit unrecognized transfers are to be ignored. But then, as per second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30E of the Old Ceiling Law, the option to be afforded to the assessee to surrender the surplus land is subject to the limitation that where the person surrendering excess land holds lands of which some are encumbered and some are not encumbered, the unencumbered land shall be surrendered in preference to encumbered lands. It is not the law that only unencumbered lands be surrendered but the law clearly envisage that the encumbered lands shall be surrendered only to the extent unencumbered lands are not available and even the State is empowered to insist for surrender of unencumbered lands. We are firmly of the opinion that permitting an assessee to surrender the encumbered lands and retain the unencumbered lands shall be against the spirit of the ceiling law as framed. 10. It is a matter of record that the transfer of the lands in favour of the writ petitioners by virtue of the decree passed by the Revenue Court of competent jurisdiction was not recognized by the Authorised Officer while determining the excess land in the hands of assessees but the fact remains that the factum of passing of the decree on the basis of the consent written statement filed, was admitted and relied upon on behalf of the assessees before the Authorised Officer. Even before the writ court the factum of passing of the decree by the Revene Court of competent jurisdiction and the respondents no.7 to 10, the legal representatives of Basta, having acquired khatedari rights over the lands in question, was not disputed by the appellant herein and co-respondents therein, by filing any counter to the writ petition and therefore, nothing turns on the question that the copy of the decree passed in favour of Basta and others was not placed on record by the respondents no.7 to 10 before the Writ Court. In our considered opinion, the decree passed in favour of Basta and others as also the order passed by the Authorised Officer in the ceiling proceedings have attained finality and therefore, the appellant herein cannot be permitted to contend that the decree passed having been considered as collusive decree and the land covered by the same having been refused to be exempted for the purpose of determining the excess land in the hands of the assessees by the Authorised Officer, the disputed land cannot be treated to be encumbered land. The decree passed by the court of competent jurisdiction is binding upon inter se between the parties and the same cannot be treated to be non est merely because while assessing the excess land in the hands of the assessees, the exemption prayed for has been disallowed by the Authorised Officer treating the said decree to be a collusive decree. It is pertinent to note that on the basis of the decree passed the land was mutated in the names of the respondents no. 7 to 10 and thus, they being recorded khatedar of the lands, it was not open for the appellant herein and others to surrender the same towards the acquisition of the land in their hands in excess of the ceiling limit, when the unencumbered lands were available with them for surrender. (emphasis supplied) 4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri J.L.Purohit assisted by Shri Sushant Ojha representing the appellant urged that the view taken by the learned Single Bench that the controversy involved in the present case stood covered by the ratio in Gulab Singh's judgment (Supra) is absolutely incorrect and perverse and hence, the appeal deserves to be accepted. 5. Per contra, Shri Sudhir Sharma, Advocate representing the respondents-writ petitioners urged that the appellant's counsel conceded before the learned Single Bench that the controversy stood covered by the ratio expounded by the Division Bench in Gulab Singh's case and hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant's counsel to question the finding recorded by the learned Single Bench (Supra). 6. We are in conformity with the submissions advanced by Shri Sharma. While arguing the matter before the Single Bench, learned counsel representing the respondents did not dispute the contention of petitioners' counsel that the controversy was covered by the assessees own case i.e. Gulab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). 7. 6. We are in conformity with the submissions advanced by Shri Sharma. While arguing the matter before the Single Bench, learned counsel representing the respondents did not dispute the contention of petitioners' counsel that the controversy was covered by the assessees own case i.e. Gulab Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). 7. After perusing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Gulab Singh (Supra), we are also of the firm opinion that the view taken by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the said case absolutely covers the controversy at hand. The judgment was passed in Gulab Singh's own case and thus, he is definitely bound by the ratio thereof as the same was admittedly not been challenged any further. 8. In this view of the matter, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever so as to warrant interference in this Special Appeal. 9. Thus, the instant Special Appeal(Writ) fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.