[2025:RJ-JP:29005] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 211/1996 1. Sitaram S/o Latur (since deceased) 1/1 Smt. Shanti (Wife)(Deceased) 1/2 Lalit Kishore (Son) 1/3 Kaushal (Son) 1/4 Naval Kishore, (Son) 1/5 Girja W/o Mukut. (Daughter) 2. Dhanraj S/o Latur 3. Madan Mohan S/o Latur 4. Prahlad S/o Ramratan (since deceased) 4/1 Shri Ramprasad, (son) 4/2 Shri Chandraprakash, (son) 4/3 Shri Nrendra, (son) 4/4 Shri Virendra (son) 5. Chaturbhuj S/o Ramratan 6. Prabhulal S/o Ramratan 7. Radhey Shyam S/o Ramratan 8. Bhawani Shanker adopted son of Bhanwarlal All R/o Bade Mandir ke pass, P.O. Itawa, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, Rajasthan, 325004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan 2. Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer 3. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota 5. Bhanwarlal S/o Birdhilal 6. Ramratan S/o Birdhilal 7. Latur S/o Birdhilal All R/o Bade Mandir ke pass, P.O. Itawa, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota, Rajasthan, 325004 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Maloo, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vishnu Bohra, Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawla [2025:RJ-JP:29005] (2 of 4) [CW-211/1996] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 30/07/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 07.07.1995 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for brevity ‘the Board’). 2. The brief facts as pleaded are that Birdi Lal Meena had an estate of 377.64 Standard Acres of land. After his death in 1932 his three sons namely Bhanwarlal, Ram Ratan and Latoor (hereinafter referred to as ‘brothers’) had 1/3rd shares each. The Sub-Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) vide order dated 31.05.1975 determined the surplus land of brothers as below:- SDO Held Bhanwarlal 3 members/ 30 St Acres, 95.88 Surplus Ramratan 7 members/ 40 St Acres, 85.88 Surplus Latoor 6 members/35 St Acres, 90.88 Surplus Total- 272.64 St. Acres The appeals filed by brothers were partly allowed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (‘RAA’) vide order dated 20.12.1975. The surplus land was modified as below:- Names RAA Bhanwarlal 95.88 Surplus Ramratan 75.88 Surplus Latoor 85.88 Surplus The order of the RAA was upheld by the Board on 14.09.1976. The proposal to reopen previous proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, (for short ‘the Act of 1973’) were dropped by the Additional Collector on 30.06.1989. The appeal filed by the State against dropping of the proceedings was dismissed on [2025:RJ-JP:29005] (3 of 4) [CW-211/1996] 15.11.1991. The sons of Bhanwarlal, Ramratan and Latoor in the year 1992 filed an appeal before the RAA against the order of SDO dated 31.05.1975. The appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay stating that they were minor at the time of passing of the order by SDO. The delay was condoned and the appeal was allowed on 29.12.1992. It was held that sons of Bhanwarlal, Ramratan and Latoor are also entitled to separate units. The revision filed by the State was allowed by the Board on 07.07.1995. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Board recorded contrary findings and order is liable to be set aside. It is contended that instead of determining dependency, attaining the majority of the petitioners was considered. The submission is that non- recording of khatedari of the minors in the revenue records shall not effect the entitlement for having independent share. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioners were minor at the relevant date. From perusal of the order of the Board, it is evident that the principles of res judicata is not made applicable, as the issues now raised by the petitioners were [2025:RJ-JP:29005] (4 of 4) [CW-211/1996] neither subject matter of earlier litigations nor the litigation was between the same parties. 7. While dealing with the merits of the case, it was recorded that issue as to whether the minors were entitled to separate share was considered and decided in the earlier round of litigation. Both the findings recorded are contradictory. The Board has blown hot and cold in the same breath. 8. Another aspect to be considered is that after recording that Bhawani Shankar was not the adopted son of Bhanwarlal in the earlier litigation, the effect qua it on the inherited estate of Birdi Lal was not taken to the logical conclusion. 9. Without dilating further on the merits of the case,for the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order of the Board is set aside and matter is remitted to decide afresh in accordance with law. 10. The petition is allowed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/1 Reportable: No