The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 17(3) and Section 21 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, regarding the entitlement of individuals to be allotted surplus lands and the consequences of fraudulent claims as a landless person.

N.P. Gupta, J.-This appeal has been filed against the Judgment of learned Single Judge dated 010.1986, dismissing the appellants writ petition. By the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the order of the learned Board of Revenue dated 28.07.1986 Annexure-3, and dated 05.02.1979 being Annexure-2, to the writ petition.

2. By the order Annexure-2, the Board of Revenue had dismissed the appellants two appeals, being Appeal Nos. 2 of 1977 and 3 of 1977, and vide Annexure-3, a review petition challenging the order passed in Appeal No. 2 of 1977, had been dismissed. Thus, the controversy is confined to the controversy raised in Appeal No. 2 of 1977 before the Board of Revenue.

3. The Board of Revenue, while deciding the Appeal No. 2 of 1977, found, that the stand of the appellant (before the Board) about she being landless person, and entitled to priority in allotment, under Rule 17(3) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973, hereafter referred to as the Rules, cannot be accepted, as the appellant is a person who had transferred the land by selling or otherwise transferring it, therefore, what she is really asking is, for allotment of surplus lands resumed from her, which is to obtain a back-door recognition, of the illegal, or unrecognisable transfers, effected by her, which were not taken cognizance of , in the main ceiling proceedings held with reference of her, and thereby to circumvent the provisions of the Act. It was also found, that the endeavour is certainly in direct opposition to basic objectives of the Act itself , which seeks to resume lands from tenants, or land owners, who have excessive lands in their possession, and allot such surplus lands, to landless labourers, as a measure of social justice. Then in the review petition again, the order was upheld, finding that there is no error apparent on the face of record.

4. The learned Single Judge after considering the provisions of Section 21, and Rule 17, so also the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, held that the idea behind imposition of ceiling under the Act was, that the land holding in favour of a few landholders should be decentralised, and should be given to the landless persons. Then, the provisions of Rule 17(3) were considered in detail on the anvil of the object of the statute. Likewise, the provisions of Section 21 were also considered, and it was found, that in the present case the appellant was no doubt a Zamindar, landlord, and in order to save the land being resumed as surplus land, resorted to transfer of the land, and claims to be landless person for allotment, and if such kind of fraud is permitted, then it will be doing great injustice to those persons, and disservice to the purpose with which this land Ceiling Act was brought into force. It was found, that the appellant was allotted 53 acres of land, and on account of non-recognition of transfer of land, claims at present to be landless person, this would mean, that inspite of the fact, that certain transfers were made by the appellant, she could claim to be landless person, thought she had been allotted 53 acres of land, and that would result into bringing land to her from the land pool despite transfer having not been recognised, and would bring about a sheer contradiction, nullifying the earlier order. Thus, it was found that the Board has rightly dismissed the appeals of the appellant, so also the review petition, and the writ petition was dismissed.

5. Assailing these orders, it was contended, that by virtue of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, hereafter referred to as the Act, the surplus land, vested in the State Government, is to be disposed of by way of allotment to landless persons, and though on the face of the language of section, it is prescribed, that the allotment is to be made on priority basis amongst the landless labourers particularly to the members of Sch