Transfer of land after the appointed date under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, would not be recognized for the purpose of determining the ceiling area applicable to the transferor, but the transferor would still be liable to surrender the surplus land. The transferee would be entitled to the price of the land out of the amount of acquisition payable to the transferor.

1. - This writ, petition has been filed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated February 24, 1988, by which, the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. It has been prayed by the petitioners that the above said order may be quashed and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Bundi may be directed to recover the possession of the surplus land out of the unencumbered land possessed by no petitioner No. 5 and he may further be directed to recover the balance of the surplus land from the petitioners, in case the land possessed by non-petitioner No. 5 falls short of surplus land.

2. It is submitted by Mr. K.K. Mehrish, learned counsel, that the petitioners are agriculturists by vocation. The Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1973 (for brevity, 'New Ceiling Law') came into force w.e.f. January 1, 1973. Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 38 of the said Act, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Rules, 1973 were framed. The SDO, Bundi, issued a notice to Mr. Ranjeet Singh, non-petitioner No. 5, under Section 11 (1) of the New Ceiling Law, calling upon him to furnish the returns of his holdings within a period of 30 days. He submitted his reply and after hearing him, the SDO, vide his judgment dated July 13, 1984 (Anx. 1), declared 71 bighas of land, situated in village Chhatarpura, Tehsil and District, Bundi, as surplus land and ordered the acquisition of the same, and also directed to take possession of the said land. In the said judgment, at S. No. 9, while giving particulars of the land to be taken in possession, the land measuring 19 bighas, one biswa, in Khasra No. 146, was also mentioned. Out of love and affection, non-petitioner No. 5, had gifted, by a registered gift-deed dated March 28, 1980, 39 bighas and four biswas of land of village Chhatarpura, in favour of non-petitioner No. 6 and possession of the same was given to him vide Anx. 2. In this gift-deed, at S. No. 4, the same land of Khasra No. 146 was also given as a gift. Since the petitioners needed agricultural lands for subsistence of their families, Ganga Kishan, father and husband of petitioners No. 3 to 9, and petitioners No. 1, 2 and 10 and non-petitioner No. 7, purchased the said land measuring 18 bighas and one biswa of Khasra No. 146 in consideration of Rs. 49,000/- from Avinash Chandra, father and guardian of non-petitioner No. 6, through a registered sale-deed dated June 6, 1983 (Anx. 3). They were also given possession of the same and since then, the petitions and non-petitioner No. 7 are in possession of the land and they cultivate the same by their own labours and implements, and are earning the livelihood of their families from the same. Consequent on the sale of the land, mentioned above, mutation No. 394 of village Chhatarpura was entered in favour of the purchasers, which was duly attested by Tehsildar, Bundi, on July 27, 1983. This land was ordered to be entered into the Khatedari of the purchasers. A photostat copy of Jamaba ldi, for the Samvant Years 2039 to 2042, has been produced and marked Anx. 4.

3. The petitioners came to know that amongst the other lands of non- petitioner No. 5, the land purchased by them has been ordered to be acquired in the ceiling proceedings under the New Ceiling Law, therefore, claim petition was filed in the Court of the SDO, Bundi, for releasing the same from acquisition, as this land was encumbered land. However, the SDO, vide his judgment dated February 11, 1985 (Anx. 5) dismissed the claim petition. An appeal against the said judgment was filed in the Court of the Collector, Bundi and, in the memorandum of appeal, it was repeated that non-petitioner No. 5 had other unencumbered land in his possession, which should have been first acquired in the proceedings under the New Ceiling Law. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Collector, vide judgment dated September 10, 1987 (Anx. 6). The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application all bef