( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of india for quashing the order dated 9-6-1978 (Annexure II) passed on an appeal by the Board of Revenue. Madhya Pradesh, confirming the order passed by the competent Authority (Additional Commissioner. Raipur), dated 12-8-1977 (Annexure-I), declaring void transfers evidenced by sale deeds (Annexures III to VII ).

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that Ram Prasad was father of Ganesh Prasad. Ganesh Prasad died during lifetime of his father leaving behind him a son mahadeo alias Mahadeo Prasad and a daughter Kalindi. Mahadeo has a son mahendrasingh alias Dongarsingh. Ram Prasad died on 18-6-1971. On 1-1 1971. Ram Prasad Mahadeo Prasad and his son Mahendra were members of joint family. Smt. Kalindi has also acquired rights in the property devolving on her on death of Ram Prasad.

( 3 ) IN proceedings under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'), the Competent Authority had published a draft statement showing the entire holding consisting of 315. 10 acres of land as belonging to mahadeo Prasad, petitioner No. 1 alone. Mahadeo prasad, who happened to be the Karta of the family, filed objections, whereby it was brought to the notice of the Competent Authority that the following transfers by way of sale had been made by him in favour of petitioners Nos. 4 to 8 :

(1) By Saraswati Bai to Baboolal, 15 acres on 7-4-1972 for Rs. 7500/- (vide Annexure III): (2) By Saraswati Bai to Surya Pra-kash 39. 74 acres on 10-2-1972 for rs. 10,000/- (vide Annexure IV): (3) By Saraswati Bai to Gajrabai etc. , 38. 86 acres on 10-2-1972 for rs. 15,000/- (vide Annexure V): (4) By Mahadeo to Kalabai. 39. 94 acres on 10-2-1972 for Rs. 20,000/- (vide Annexure VI) (5) By Mahadeo to Nilkumar, 53. 58 acres on 10-2-1972 for Rs. 25,000/- (vide Annexure VII ).

In spite of this, without making enquiry, as contemplated by Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Competent Authority passed an order on 27-5-1976, declaring that 170. 16 acres of land had vested in the State. This order was presumably under section 11 (6) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeals before the Board of Revenue, which were allowed by Order dated 3010-1976 and the Competent Authority was directed to hold enquiry into validity of the transfers in question after issuing notices under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In the remand order it was also observed that publication of fresh draft statement after passing an order under Section 4 (1) of the Act, will not be necessary.

( 4 ) AFTER remand, the Competent Authority held an enquiry under Section 4 (1)of the Act and by order dated 12-8-1977 (Annexure I) held that the transfers in question are void and that the lands to the extent of 170. 16 acres have vested in the State as surplus lands as ordered vide order dated 27-5-1976. This order has been passed without issuing a fresh draft statement.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by this order Mahadeo Prasad. petitioner No. 1, preferred an appeal No. 238/v/77 and other petitioners preferred appeal No. 239/v/77 to the Board of Revenue, which have been rejected by order dated 9-6-1978 (Annexure II ). Hence this petition.

( 6 ) IN this petition, the petitioners contended that (i) according to the scheme of the Act, draft statement is to follow decision regarding validity of transfers by way of sale passed after enquiry under Section 4 (1) of the Act; and a draft statement issued prior to the passing of such an order cannot be treated to be compliance of mandatory provisions enacted by Section 11 (2) of the Act; (ii)that the observations made in the remand order to the effect that no fresh draft statement need be issued after passing of order under Section 4 (1) of the Act, cannot operate as res judicata so as to preclude the petitioners from agitating the question regarding fresh issuance of draft statement: (iii) that this has resulted in illegal deprivation of petitioners val