1. :- Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2. This appeal arises out of the ceiling proceeding taken in the case of Shri Gopal Singh son of Chand Singh and Smt. Sire Kanwar widow of Shri Pratap Singh who was brother of Gopal Singh. In the instant case, with regard to the land in question, two independent ceiling proceedings were held in the case of both brothers under Chapther III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1995 (for short'the Act'), i.e. Old Ceiling Law and the proceedings stood concluded.

3. On coming into force the Rajasthan Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act 1973 (hereinafter referred as Act 1973') the proceedings took place under Act of 1973.

4. The petitioners are holding agricultural land in village Sonai Lakha in Tehsil and District Pali in the State of Rajasthan. On coming into force of Old Ceiling Law, ceiling proceedings were initiated against late Shri Gopal Singh husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 bearing case No.141/71 and later on another proceedings were initiated against the petitioners number bearing 141/73. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pali vide its order dated 31-10-75 dropped the proceedings holding that the petitioners have no excess land. The transfers made by Shri Gopal Singh and Sire Kanwar were recognised.

5. The State Government under Section 15 (2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act. 1973 directed to reopen both the cases. The learned Additional Collector, Pali (respondent No.3) on reopening of two separate cases, started one case against Shri Gopal Singh and petitioner No. 5. The learned Additional Collector, Pali (respondent No. 3) vide its order dated 12-4-89 decided that each of the persons has 17.8 standard acre of excess land and so ordered for acquisition of the excess land.

6. Against the order dated 12-4-89 the petitioners filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 21-9-90 dismissed the appeal as time barred. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition No. 4607/90. The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 6-5-98 and the delay in filing the appeal before the Board of Revenue was condoned and the case was remanded to the Board of Revenue to decide the same on merits.

7. After the judgment of this Court when the learned Board of Revenue vide its order dated 9-10-2000 dismissed the appeal against this order, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. The writ petition was also dismissed and the order of Board of Revenue dated 9-10-2000 was confirmed vide judgment dated 2-8- 2001, against which present appeal has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that all the gift-deeds in question were valid as illiterate villagers may commit mistake in pointing out their age and difference of 3 and 4 years is common and judicial notice can be taken of the fact that age pointed by illiterate villagers may vary by 3 to 4 years either way. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the moment sources of income is provided to the minor son by the father, minor becomes self supporting and cannot be treated as dependent upon the father. Gift of agricultural land by the father in favour of the minor son by the registered gift deed prior to the cut-off date prescribed in the Ceiling Law cannot be treated as inoperative for the purpose of Ceiling law.

9. This contention requires to be looked into those documents and noticing of the surrounding circumstances.

10. Chapter III B was inserted in Rajasthan Tenancy Act as the first measure of imposing ceiling on agricultural holding as a policy of agrarian reform. In the instant case bona fide transfers of holding after 5-2-58 but before 9- 12-59 under the provisions of the Chapter 3B were not to be recognised and taken into consideration and the burden of proving any such transfers to be bona fide lies on the transferer. The tr