Ganga Ram and Others vs Board of Revenue and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.03.2000 and order dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (''the Board''), whereby the appeal and the review petition filed by the petitioners have been rejected respectively.

The facts in brief may be noticed thus: after coming into force of Chapter-IIIB of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (''the Act of 1955'') Gumana Ram submitted his return before the Authorized Officer, who by his order dated 18.11.1971 found that there was no surplus land of Gumana Ram and dropped the proceedings.

After coming into force of the provisions of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (''the Act of 1973''), an order dated 03.07.1980 was passed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 reopening the order dated 18.11.1971 and the Authorized Officer was directed to take further proceedings.

By order dated 01.03.1983, the Additional Collector, Nagaur came to the conclusion that there were 04 members in the family of Gumana Ram and as such he was entitled to hold 30 Standard Acre land only and found 4.94 Standard Acre land as surplus and ordered its resumption. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:--

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Board, the Board by its judgment dated 29.05.1990 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The order dated 29.05.1990 passed by the Board was challenged by way of writ petition by the petitioners and this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3800/1990 (Padma Ram and Ors. v. State and Ors.) decided on 13.01.1997, inter alia, made the following observations and ultimately remanded back the matter to the Board:--

"Mr. Bishnoi, learned for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has committed an error in not considering Ganga Ram''s share on the ground that the decree obtained by him was collusive as the State was not a party to the suit. This submission of Mr. Bishnoi cannot be accepted being the question of fact decided by the courts below against the petitioners in a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is rejected.

However, there is a force in the submission made by Mr. Bishnoi that if Board of Revenue has held that the decree cannot be considered in favour of Ganga Ram, then the Board of Revenue ought to have included Ganga Ram in the family of Gumana Ram and accordingly calculated the share. He submitted that in all there were six members in the family of deceased Gumana Ram viz., deceased Gumana Ram, his wife Rukma Bai, two sons Padma Ram and Lichhma Ram and his daughter Kunni and son Ganga Ram. If the land which has gone in share of Ganga Ram by way of decree, cannot be considered on the ground that the decree was in collusion, then his share ought to have been considered in the family. That is not done and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal.

....

....

....

I fully agree with the submission made by Mr. Bishnoi that the Board of Revenue has committed a grave error. Firstly, that Gumana Ram has never stated in his cross-examination that his daughter was married before 16 years and even Nanu Ram''s admission in cross-examination would not help much the State Government. 16 years is calculated then also it cannot be said that she was married on 1.4.66. In absence of any direct evidence, the statement made by deceased Gumana Ram in the return that Kunni was unmarried and accordingly her share has to be calculated.

In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned Board of Revenue to decide the share of major son of Ganga Ram and pass the order in accordance with law in light of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs."

On remand, the Board by its impugned judgment dated 13.03.2000 dismissed the appeal. Whereafter, the review petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by order dated 30.05.2000.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Board committed grave error in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and the same is ex-facie contrary to the directions issued by this Court while remanding the matter back to the Board by judgment dated 13.01.1997. It was submitted that despite the fact that the Board was required to determine the number of members of the family, not a word has been said by the Board and simply the appeal has been dismissed and further the review petition has also been wrongly dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the Board.

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the writ petition as well as the Board and SDO, which was summoned.

A bare look at the orders passed by the authorities below reveals that initially when proceedings were initiated under Chapter-IIIB of the Act of 1955, Gumana Ram claimed 08 members in his family in the declaration filed by him, which declaration was accepted by the authority and the proceedings were dropped on 18.11.1971.

Whereafter by order dated 03.07.1980 passed under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973, wherein the notice given to Gumana Ram indicated that in the 08 members declared by him in the original return, the daughter-in-laws could not have been included resulting in reduction of number of member to 06 only; further the transfers made after 25.02.1958 (cut off date) were also not considered besides questioning the validity of decree dated 25.03.1969 partitioning the property held by Gumana Ram, which it was claimed were not considered while passing the order dated 18.11.1971 and, therefore, the matter was referred to Additional Collector, Nagaur for reopening the ceiling and decide the same after hearing the parties.

In the proceedings before the Additional Collector, the plea raised was that Ganga Ram son of Gumana Ram went in adoption to wife of Narayan Ram (brother of Gumana Ram) and said Ganga Ram filed a Revenue Suit No. 315/1968, which came to be decided by judgment and decree dated 25.03.1969 and he was held entitled to land admeasuring 213.3 Bigha and, therefore, the said land was not required to be included in the account of Gumana Ram. The further claim was that there were 05 members in the family of Gumana Ram i.e. his two sons Padma Ram and Lichhma Ram and his daughters Kesar and Kunni besides Gumana Ram himself.

The Additional Collector after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the decree dated 25.03.1969 was collusive decree and the same could not be relied on. Further by treating Ganga Ram as having gone in adoption and holding that daughter Kunni was married on the cut off date i.e. 01.04.1966 held that there were only 04 members in the family and passed the order as quoted hereinbefore ordering resumption of the surplus land admeasuring 4.94 Standard Acre.

Whereafter in the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Board, the finding regarding the decree being collusive was upheld. Further it was held that as Narayan Ram, brother of Gumana Ram died in Samvat Year 1996, when the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 had not come into force, the entire holding came to the share of Gumana Ram and he continued to hold the same on the cut off date and once there was no land in deceased Narayan Ram''s name merely by adoption of Ganga Ram by the wife of Narayan Ram, Ganga Ram did not get any share in the property, which had already vested in Gumana Ram, which could not be divested by subsequent adoption.

Feeling aggrieved when the petitioners approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3800/1990, this Court as quoted hereinbefore upheld the finding regarding the decree being collusive and whereafter noted the contentions of the counsel that if the decree cannot be considered in favour of Ganga Ram then the Board ought to have included Ganga Ram in the family of Gumana Ram and accordingly calculate the share.

A further plea regarding non-inclusion of Kunni was also raised regarding which this Court found that in absence of any direct evidence, it cannot be said that Kunni was married on 01.04.1966 and remanded back the matter to the Board.

A bare look at the entire sequence of events clearly reveal that Gumana Ram and Narayan Ram were two brothers, Narayan Ram died in Samvat 1996 (around 1939 AD) and in view of the Shastric Hindu Law governing the parties, the entire land vested in Gumana Ram and was recorded as such in the revenue records. Whereafter on the cut off date i.e. 01.04.1966, Gumana Ram was holding the land admeasuring 422.5 Bigha.

In the statement given by Gumana Ram as NAW-1 before the Additional Collector, Nagaur on 02.07.1982, he claimed himself, his sons Padma Ram and Lichhma Ram, his wife and daughter Kunni in his family and claimed that his son Ganga Ram had been given in adoption to his sister-in-law (wife of Narayan Ram) and claimed that he was given in adoption in Samvat Year 2015 or 2016 (1958 or 1959 AD). Whereafter, it was claimed that in a suit filed by Ganga Ram as adopted son of Narayan Ram in the year 1968 by decree dated 25.03.1969, the property was partitioned and Ganga Ram was held entitled to 213.3 Bigha land.

So far as the claim of the decree dated 25.03.1969 having been passed in favour of Ganga Ram is concerned, the said decree has been held to be collusive by the Additional Collector, Nagaur, the finding of the Board has been upheld by this Court by its judgment dated 13.01.1997.

Once the plea of partition goes away admittedly, the entire property remains as property of Gumana Ram. However, the contention that if the decree of partition is not considered then Ganga Ram should be included in the family of Gumana Ram, has apparently no basis. The plea of adoption and the plea of partition are two different aspects and the one is not dependent on other. Gumana Ram in his statement as NAW-1 categorically indicated that his son Ganga Ram had been given in adoption to wife of his brother Narayan Ram in Samvat Year 2015 or 2016 (1958 or 1959 AD), the relevant part of the testimony reads as under:--

The said aspect has been accepted by the authorities below and merely because the decree was found to be collusive, same cannot result in the adoption claimed by Gumana Ram as illegal or liable to be ignored.

In that view of the matter merely because the decree dated 23.03.1969 has been found to be collusive, the same does not result in Ganga Ram getting included in the family of Gumana Ram.

So far as the judgment of this Court dated 13.01.1997 is concerned, this Court though noted that there was force in the submission of the counsel regarding the plea that as a consequence of holding the decree as collusive, Ganga Ram would be included in the family of Gumana Ram, no finding was recorded by this Court in this regard and, therefore, it cannot be said that any specific/binding direction was given by this Court to include Ganga Ram as a member of family of Gumana Ram.

So far as the plea regarding the inclusion of Kunni as member of the family of Gumana Ram is concerned, the judgment of this Court dated 13.07.1997 was clear and categoric, wherein the Court agreed with the submission and found that the Board had committed a grave error in not including Kunni as member of the family of Gumana Ram and, therefore, Kunni was required to be included as member of the family of Gumana Ram.

It is interesting to note that having been faced with the situation that while on the one hand the adoption of Ganga Ram to wife of Narayan Ram was held as valid and on the other hand the decree was held as collusive, in the review petition filed before the Board, a specific plea was raised that Ganga Ram was given in adoption after the cut off date i.e. after 01.04.1966 and, therefore, as on the cut off date Ganga Ram was member of Gumana Ram''s family and, therefore, the number of family members would be 06. However, the said plea is ex-facie incorrect in view of the categoric statement of Gumana Ram as noticed hereinbefore, wherein he has indicated that the adoption took place in the year 1958 or 1959.

The inclusion of Kunni in the family of Gumana Ram also does not help the case of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the Additional Collector by his order dated 01.03.1983 though found only 04 members as members of the family of Gumana Ram, indicated that upto 05 members under the Ceiling Law 30 Standard Acre land can be held and even if Kunni is included in the family of Gumana Ram, still the number increases from 4 to 5 only and, therefore, still the land found in the account of Gumana Ram on the cut off date continues to be excess to the ceiling limit. Therefore, even if the judgment/order passed by the Board dated 23.03.2000 and 30.05.2000 are held to be incorrect only to the extent of not including Kunni as member of the family, the petitioners do not get any relief on account of such inclusion.

In view of the above, though a part of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the Additional Collector, Nagaur is incorrect, in the ultimate analysis, the direction issued by the Additional Collector by its order dated 01.03.1983 holding that Gumana Ram was having excess land to the extent of 4.94 Standard Acre, does not call for any interference.

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.