1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. A short question is involved in this writ petition.

3. Ceiling proceedings were ultimately decided by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.2.1998 (Annex.3). The Board of Revenue declared that the assessee is entitled to get 40 standard acres of land and that the assessee has 34 bighas 9 biswas excess land which is required to be acquired under the ceiling law applicable. The petitioner submitted a review petition before the Board of Revenue and submitted that in view of the said order dated 17.2.1998, the petitioner is entitled to hold 40 standard acres of land and according to the petitioner, the remaining land is falling in small patch land as it will be about 2 standard acres only. Therefore, in view of this fact and in the light of Section 301 of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act of 1973'), the petitioner is entitled to keep that remaining land as small patch.

4. The Board of Revenue decided the revision petition vide order dated 3.7.1998 (Annex.5) and observed that if the excess land is only a small patch under Section 301 of the Act of 1973, then the petitioner may apply before the Additional Collector for the relief.

5. The petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Collector in pursuance of the order of the Board of Revenue dated 3.7.1998 and prayed that no land be acquired from the petitioner as the petitioner was held entitled to keep 40 standard acres and remaining land is only 18 bighas barani II land and if it is converted into barani I, then it will be only 15 bighas, therefore, the alleged excess land is only a strip land and hence, it cannot be acquired in view of Section 301 of the Act of 1973.

6. The Additional Collector vide order 6.8.1998 (Annex.7) held that since the land was calculated by Board of Revenue in its order dated 7.2.1998 and remaining land is 34.9 bighas whereas the fragment in Ladnun Teshil is up to 30 bighas of land, therefore, the Additional Collector rejected the application of the petitioner. Appeal against the said order dated 6.8.1998 by the petitioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 20.12.2000 (Annex.9). Hence, this writ petition.

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Additional Collector as well as the Board of Revenue Committed clear error of law as both the courts below failed to appreciate the effect of not only the order dated 3.7.1998 of the Board of Revenue but also failed to take note of Government circular dated 4.2.1964. Two courts below were under impression that since the Board of Revenue in its order dated 17.2.1998 held that the petitioner is entitled to 40 standard acres and also held that 40 standard acres means 353 bighas 7 biswas land and that the excess land is 34 bighas 9 biswas, therefore, the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to determine how much land will remain after permitting the petitioner to keep 353 bighas 7 biswas.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is true that in the order dated 17.2.1998, the Board of Revenue held that the petitioner can hold 40 standard acres of land and at the same time, observed that 40 standard acres mean 353 bighas 7 biswas. Therefore, there are two findings, one is petitioner's entitlement of land to the extent of 40 standard acres and another is 40 standard acres means 353 bighas 7 biswas. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is ready to surrender excess land, therefore, the ceiling authorities are required to calculate 40 standard acres of land in accordance with law and Rules. It is also a fact that when in an order, there is a mistake of calculation only without affecting the merits of the case, then that can be corrected at any time. There is no dispute that looking to the number of family members, the petitioner is entitled to keep 40 standard acres. The ceiling Law provides that the land should be conv