Honble JAIN, J.–The appellants have preferred this appeal u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court dated 10/12/1996 whereby the writ petition No. 851/90 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

(2) The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows. After coming into force of the provisions of Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, proceedings were initiated by the S.D.O., Parbatsar against late Shri Kalyan Singh for determination of the ceiling area. After holding the inquiry, the learned S.D.O. came to the conclusion that no surplus land was being held by Shri Kalyan Singh. Ceiling proceedings were, therefore, dropped by his order dated 6/11/1971. However, the State Government passed an order on 4/2/1981 u/S. 15(2) of the Imposition of Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the Additional Collector was directed to re-open the case of Kalyan Singh and render decision afresh. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Kalyan Singh expired and the present appellants were taken on record as his legal representatives. Pursuant to the order dated 4/2/1981, the learned Additional Collector conducted inquiry and came to the conclusion that late Kalyan Singh was holding 359.4 bighas of land which also included land held by his sons. After computation, he declared 156.05 bighas of land (Barani Gr. II) as surplus by his order dated 18/6/1984. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was partly allowed. The Board of Revenue held that all the sons of Kalyan Singh could not be clubbed for the purpose of determination of ceiling area in respect of Kalyan Singh. Accordingly, after computation, the Board of Revenue held that late Kalyan Singh was holding 46.56 standard acres and since he was entitled to hold only 30 standard acres. The remaining land 16.5 standard acres was decla- red as surplus by an order dated 4/6/1989. (3) The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue but the same was rejected by the order dated 24/10/1989. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed the above writ petition against the order of the Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the D.B. of this Court in Mangat Singh vs. Board of Revenue (writ petition no. 1602/81) decided on 26/8/1992 that Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Govt. Land), Rules, 1963 was not ultravires of Sec. 30-C. The above decision of the D.B. clearly covered the contentions raised by the appellants in that writ.

(4) We have heard Shri S.N. Sharma learned counsel for the appellants. He has contended that the above D.B. decision of this court requires re-consideration inasmuch as the points raised by him were not covered in that decision. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri Sharma is that Sec. 30-C prescribes the extent of ceiling area. The explanation appended to Sec. 30-C is very important and it defines the meaning of ``standard acre. The S.D.O. concerned is invested with the power to make the relevant legal inquiry for ascertaining the ceiling area of a particular agriculturist. The subject matter of his inquiry would involve the determination of the standard acre in respect of the land in question. For making this inquiry, the S.D.O. is required to consider various factors. The agricultural lands in Rajasthan are not similarly situated as its productive capacity differs from place to place loo- king to the irrigation facilities, soil condition and other local factors. In order to ensure a rational inquiry within the parametres of Sec. 30-C, the S.D.O. is required to exercise his discretion with special reference to the above factors. Each matter will differ because the situation of the lands will differ from place to place. By enacting Rule 19, the State Government has totally curbed the scope of inquir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document