A transfer of an estate or part thereof which is liable to acquisition under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estates Act, 1963, made by the landowner on or after the date of commencement of the Act by way of sale, mortgage, gift, exchange, lease, assignment, surrender, bequest, creation of trust or otherwise shall not be recognized for any purposes of the Act and the estate or part so transferred shall be deemed to continue to vest in the landowner.

1. - These 11 appeals before us arise out of a common order dated September 22, 1980, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing 37 identical writ petitions.

2. As common questions are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment.

3. It will be convenient to notice the facts in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 204 of 1981 Bal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. which has arisen out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 278 of 1976 Bal Singh v. State.

4. The petitioner-appellant was employee of the former Ruler of erestwhile State of Jodhpur. By a document Anx. 1 dated 5-1-1964 the Comptroller of House-hold of the former Ruler of Jodhpur State Shri Gaj Singh allowed him to cultivate 50 Bighas of land in Khasra No. 4292 situale in Moja, Bilara which belonged to the Ex-Ruler of Jodhpur, We may reproduce Anx. 1 and it is as under:

"HIS HIGHNESS HOUSE HOLD, JODHPUR
Umaid Bhawan Palace, Jodhpur, Dated 5th January, 1964

Shri Bal Singh s/o Bhom Singh Rajput at present Doedhidhar in H.H. House-hold Department has been admitted as tenant of the agricultural land of H.H. the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur Shri Gaj Singhji in Moja Bilara, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur and allowed to cultivate 50 Bighas land in Khasra No. 4292.
Sd/- Manoharsingh COMPTROLLER OF HOUSE HOLD JODHPUR.

5. By this document Annx. 1 the petitioner was allowed to cultivate 50 Bighas agricultural land as according to him he was admitted as tenant of that land. It appears that on December 27, 1969 or there about the Comptroller of House-hold of the Ex-Maharaja of Jodhpur passed order by which the agricultural land in question was granted to him in token of his long and loyal services to His Highness Jodhpur. The original orders have not been produced along with the writ petition except a copy of such order was filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 917 of 1966 Shaitan Singh v. State of Rajasthan . In 1972, the petitioner-appellant Bal Singh applied for mutation of his name in the Revenue record. The basis on which the mutation was claimed was the grant made by the Ex-Ruler of Jodhpur in his favour on December 27, 1959. At the time of making this application the land in question was entered in the revenue record as the personal property of the former Ruler of Jodhpur Shri Gaj Singh. He was entered as Khatedar tenant of that land. In the mid of the year 1972 an order was made by the Tehsildar, Bilara by which it was mutated and was entered in the same of the petitioner-appellant. The basis on which the mutation was ordered by the Tehsildar, Bilara, was the grant made on December 27, 1969. After mutation the name of the petitioner-appellant was entered in the Jamabandi (Khewat Khatauni) in respect of Samvat Year 2029-2034. Thereafter the petitioner-appellant started paying land revenue for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974 and rent was paid in 1972 for earlier three years from Samvat Year 2026. The Collector, Jodhpur, issued an order dated December 9,1976 under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquision of Land Owners' Estates Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act' here in after) making him to deliver possession of the land in his possession to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, as no transfer of an estate liable to acquisition under the Act as amended by the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Acquisition of Land Owners' Estates (Amendment) Act, 1975 ('the Amending Act') or part thereof) made by the land owner after the date of commencement of the Act, i.e. April 13, 1964, could be recognised and such transfer would be null and void and further that the land shall be deemed to continue to vest in the land owner. A reply was submitted to the notice by the petitioner-appellant stating that he was admitted as tenant to the land in question by the former Ruler on January 5, 1964 and he has been in peaceful enjoyment of the land in dispute since then. Reliance was also placed on the grant alleged to have been m