The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of recognizing valid decrees of competent courts and the implications of ancestral property on the distribution of surplus land.

Rajesh Balia, J.-Learned Counsel for the appellants states that since connected Appeal No. 257/2000 has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 by the present Counsel and the interests are not contrary to each other, the service of notice on Respondent No. 4 in the present appeal may be dispensed with as the learned Counsel for the appellant will be arguing both the appeals simultaneously on behalf of sons of Shiv Ram and legal representatives of Laloo, who were the original brothers and sons of Mangla, Accordingly, the service on Respondent No. 4 in the present appeal is dispensed with as his interest is represented by the appellants.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on merit of these two appeals as they are arising out of common ceiling proceedings initiated and concluded against Laloo S/o Mangla. According to the facts noticed by the learned Single Judge, the following pedigree of the two parties is as under:-

Hukma | Mangla (2010=1953-54) | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ _ _ _ | |

Sheo Ram (died) | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Laloo | |Chandra (Adopted) | Noonda | Lacha | Mansukha | (Chandra) (claimed to be adopted to Laloo) | Bhuri | Goura

3. Mangla admittedly died prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act somewhere in 1953-54 in Samwat 2010. He had two sons Sheo Ram and Laloo. Sheo Ram died leaving behind four sons and two daughters and widow. The Board of Revenue in its order recorded that the land in question was originally held by Mangla and on his death by his heirs.

4. It must be noticed from the aforesaid finding that Mangla died in 1953-54 prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act. Since Sheo Ram had already died and Laloo was eldest son of family, his name was entered in the land records.

5. Under Chapter 3B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the first instance the ceiling proceedings were commenced against Laloo. The said proceedings were dropped vide order dated 28.07.1971 on finding that Laloo had 7 members in his family and, therefore, he did hold the land in excess.

6. However, prior to the proceedings under Chapter 3B culminated, Chandra filed suit for partition against Laloo and that suit had been decreed as the parties arrived at a compromise on 28.04.1969. The fact that the partition decree was passed between the members of the family of Mangla is also not in dispute.

7. By order dated 05.07.1979, the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15(2) directed reopening of ceiling case of Laloo inter alia on the ground that inquiry into the number of family members was not conducted; and the transfers made after 25.02.1958 had not been inquired into; that the daughter-in-law of Laloo was held to be member of the family when she cannot be member of family of father-in-law and the grand-son of Laloo was included as a member of family but he was not born on the relevant date 01.04.1966. It was also found that the competent officer has not also inquired into the alleged adoption of Chandra to Laloo.

8. In response to this, it was brought to the notice of the competent officer that as on 01.04.1966, Laloo alone was not holding the land. The land was being ancestral and Laloos brother and his brothers son were also sharers and the suit for partition has been decreed between the share holders. It was also pointed out that out of the land held by the petitioners, 9 bighas land was already utilized for construction of road by the State Government and is not available for acquisition. The factum of existing decree of partition of the land in question was also brought to the notice of the competent officer.

9. While considering the points stated in the order