Hon'ble CHAUDHARI, J.— Appellants have filed these appeals, against the common order dt. 4.3.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.1535 to 1540 of 1987. In all the above appeals, common questions of facts and law are involved. Hence, they are being decided by a common order.

2. For convenience, the facts in this judgment are being taken from Special Appeal Writ No.522/1997, Pema & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In this case, Fateh Singh son of Prithvi Singh, resident of Kotari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali was holding agricultural land measuring 7751/3 bighas Chahi as well as Barani. Out of this land, he had transferred some land in favour of his family members and some land by way of different registered sale-deeds to appellants and other persons. Fateh Singh filed returns, as required under the Ceiling Law. Legality of the transfer made by Fateh Singh was examined by SDO, Bali, Revenue Appellate Authority and Revisional Court up to the final stage, and transfers made by Fateh Singh were ignored and not recognized and ultimately, it was held that Fateh Singh was entitled to hold only 30 standard acres of land. The appellants submitted, that Fateh Singh originally transferred the land on 14.6.1968 by way of registered sale-deeds to number of transferees, and name of the said transferees were effected in the revenue record since the date of transfer, and the said transferees, who were agriculturists and domiciled in Rajasthan, remained in possession of the land. The appellants purchased the land from the said transferees by registered sale-deeds and after that, the appellants remained in possession of the land and their names were entered in the revenue record. Fateh Singh furnished returns of agricultural land in excess of the ceiling area, which was already transferred by him and had also submitted particulars of additional land on 2.2.1970 mentioning therein names of transferees as well as annexed copies of the sale-deeds. The aforesaid transfers were ignored by the Board of Revenue vide order dt. 24.4.1976, holding therein, that the transfers, so made in favour of the family members were not valid. Some of the transferees, who had been left with some land after selling the land to the appellants, filed objections before SDO, Bali, who vide order dt. 6.1.1977, exempted the agricultural land from the purview of the ceiling area of Fateh Singh as mentioned in the order of SDO Annexure-3. Fateh Singh challenged this order before the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dt. 15.3.1980, dismissed the appeal. Fateh Singh preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide Annexure-4 dt. 31.3.1987. It was held by the Board of Revenue that under section 30-E(ii) of the Land Ceiling Act, the land which is unencumbered should be taken first and rest of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was not interfered with. In compliance of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, vide order dt. 29.4.1987, SDO, Bali passed an order Annexure-5 for taking possession of the land so involved. Appellants being aggrieved by the order Annexure-5, when they had been threatened to be dispossessed, approached this Court for quashing of the impugned orders dt. 29.4.1987, 6.1.1977 and 31.3.1987 after serving notice for demand of justice Annexure-6 on the ground that they are subsequent transferees of the land and their names having been recorded in the revenue record but they were not impleaded as party before passing of any order. Appellants also alleged that some of the Khasra numbers, which have been transferred by some sale-deeds have been exempted from the purview of ceiling area, though appellants' Khasra numbers have been treated to be in the purview of ceiling area and thus, without any reasonable basis, the appellants have been treated differently and unequivocally