[2025:RJ-JP:28865] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19324/2024 State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar District Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Satyanarayan Son Of Hemraj, R/o Village Satheli, Tehsil And District Bundi 2. Omprakash Son Of Hemraj, R/o Village Satheli, Tehsil And District Bundi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms. Gunjan Chawla For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 30/07/2025 1. This petition is filed by the State aggrieved of the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board’). 2. The brief facts are that the proceedings against Hemraj s/o Bherulal were initiated for determining the surplus land under the ceiling law. On the relevant date i.e. 01.01.1973 Hemraj was having total one hundred forty nine Bigha nineteen Biswas land. As per the declaration, the family consisted of four members, Hemraj, his wife and two sons. The competent authority vide order dated 07.01.1976 considered that both sons were major, aged twenty six and twenty eight years respectively and determined thirty five bigha three biswa as surplus land. [2025:RJ-JP:28865] (2 of 3) [CW-19324/2024] 2.1 The proceedings were again initiated under the ceiling law and by an ex parte order dated 30.06.2008 fifty nine bigha nineteen biswa land declared to be surplus. The competent authority held that Omprakash s/o Hemraj was minor on the relevant date. 3. The respondent (in this petition) filed appeal before the Board along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for placing on record the birth certificate, PAN card and report of the medical board determining the age of Omprakash. The application was allowed. Taking into account the documents produced, the appellate authority held that Omprakash was major on the relevant date and the order dated 30.06.2008 was set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier order in the ceiling proceedings, age of Omprakash was wrongly determined. It is further contended that the proof of age of Omprakash was produced for the first time before the appellate authority. 5. The contentions raised and pressed in this petition by learned counsel for the petitioner lacks merit. The order dated 07.01.1976 whereby Omprakash was held to be major on the relevant date and surplus land was determined thirty five bigha and three biswa was never challenged. Neither in the order passed on 30.06.2008 nor in this petition any material has been putforth which forms the basis for doubting or challenging the age determined by the competent authority vide order dated 07.01.1976. 6. Another angle is that as per the birth certificate and the PAN card, the date of birth of Om Prakash is 01.02.1954 and the age [2025:RJ-JP:28865] (3 of 3) [CW-19324/2024] determined by the medical board vide certificate dated 07.03.2015 is in consonance with the date of birth and age was determined between sixty two to sixty five years. There is no challenge posed to these documents even in the petition. 7. The factual findings recorded in the order which had attained finality were reversed after thirty two years and that too without any basis. 8. The contention that the age was wrongly determined vide order dated 07.01.1976, is a bald statement not substantiated even by an iota of evidence either produced before the Board or in the writ petition. 9. The argument that the proof of date of birth and age was first time produced before the appellate authority does not enhance the case of the petitioner. The age of Omprakash was determined in 1976 in the ceiling proceedings and in case the order was to be modified or the factual finding was to be reversed, the onus was on the petitioner. 10. The present petition challenging the order of the Board was filed after delay and laches of five years, for which there is no explanation putforth. 11. The petition is dismissed having no merits. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/38 Reportable: Yes