The application for adducing additional evidence was disallowed.
He sought permission to adduce additional evidence in support of his companytention.
The Board went on to hold that there is numberprovision for separate units in Chapter III B of the Act of 1955.
It was thus held that Raghubir Singh and his son Surendrapal Singh are entitled to retain 124 Bighas and 16 Biswas only and the surplus land measuring, 4 Bighas and 6 Biswas may be resumed.
Surendrapal Singh, the erstwhile minor son of Raghubir Singh has companye up to this Court by way of special leave which was granted and hence the present appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Raghubir Singh filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner, who by his order dated 6th September, 1976 dismissed the same and upheld the order of the Sub Divisional Officer.
Before the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ petitions it was urged on behalf of Raghubir Singh that numberappeal having been filed by the State from the order the Sub Divisional Officer dated 5th May, 1976, the said order became final and the Board of Revenue had numberjurisdiction to set aside that part of the Sub Divisional Officers order which had gone against the State and in his favour.
On behalf of raghubir Singh it was urged before the Board that the petitioner was in possession of 112 Bighas only and number 129 Bighas and 3 Biswas as held by the lower companyrts.
In the ultimate analysis the Member of the Board found that there was a gross and patent illegality in the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and, companysequently, set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 5th May, 1976 as well as the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6th September, 1976 and remanded the case to the Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, for fresh determination of the calling area for Raghubir Singh.
The first writ petition was filed by the father Raghubir Singh whereas the second writ petition was filed by his minor son Surendrapal Singh through his next friend Shri Jagjit Singh, maternal grand father of the minor.
Rajasthan ILR 1955 5 Raj.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.1979 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
These writ petitions were decided by the aforesaid companymon judgment.
The matter was taken to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan by a revision application and the Board by its order dated 14th April, 1975 directed that the ceiling area for Raghubir Singh may be determined according to the old law i.e. Act of 1955 and number according to the new law i.e. Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973 .
The Sub Divisional Officer, then came to the companyclusion that the father and the son companystitute two separate units and each one of them was entitled to get 62 Bighas and 8 Biswas.
The facts of the case briefly are that proceedings under Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act Act No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Raghubir Singh filed a revision application under Section 230 of the Act of 1955 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan.
Subhash Mallick and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
1367 of 1980.
769 of 1979.
D. Sharma for the Respondents.
769 of 1979 Surendrapal Singh v. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and others .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL,J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 19th July, 1979 passed in B. Civil Writ Petition No.
However, the member of the Board came to the companyclusion that Surendrapal Singh appellant here in was born to Raghubir Singh on 14th March, 1963 and was only 13 years of age when the ceiling proceedings were finalized by the Sub Divisional Officer on 5th May, 1976.
681 of 1978 Raghubir Singh v. The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and others and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
3 of 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955 were companymenced for determining the ceiling area for Raghubir Singh.
He further held that the provisions of the old ceiling law applied to the case but the Sub Divisional Officer had companymitted an error of law in determining the ceiling area under the new law i.e. the Act of 1973.
The Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, by his order dated 10th August, 1972, determined the ceiling area, but an appeal by Raghubir Singh, the Revenue Appellate Authority, set aside the order of the sub Divisional Officer on March 6, 1973 and remanded the case.
In pursuance of the direction of the Board, the Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh, by his order dated 5th May, 1976 held that Surendrapal Singh, appellant herein aged 12 years, was a minor son of Raghubir Singh and used to study in Punjab and further held that the land in possession of Raghubir Singh was ancestral.
The relief claimed in both the petitions before the High Court was the same, namely for setting aside of the order dated 6th August, 1977 passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer.
