[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 563 of 1999 BOARD OF REVENUE V/S MOHAN Mr. O.P. Boob for appellants Mr. R.K. Soni on behalf of Mr. I.R. Choudhary for respondent. Date of Judgment : 6.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. JUDGMENT ----- BY THE COURT (PER HON’BLE CHAUDHARI, J.): This appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge, by which the petition of the respondent was allowed and orders of courts below were set aside. Brief facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against respondent under the ceiling law, which were dropped on 18.12.1974, holding that there were 8 members in the family of respondent and no land was available for resumption. Thereafter, the State Government by order dated 03.06.1976 authorized Additional Collector, Nagaur to reopen the case. The Addl. Collector, Nagaur, by order dated 12.06.1984 ordered for resumption of 32 bighas 1 biswa of land on the ground that Smt. Hastudi, mother of respondent, was head of family which consisted of Hastudi, her adopted son respondent Mohan and his five sons, and ordered that they were entitled to hold only 189 bighas of land out of 221 bighas 1 biswa land held by them. Respondent filed appeal before Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue vide judgment dated 15.09.1987 upheld the order of [2] Addl. Collector, Nagaur, but on other grounds and observed that Mst. Hastudi cannot be declared head of the family and respondent was head of the family and his family consisted of himself, his wife and five minor children and excluded Mst. Hastudi from respondent’s family. Both these authorities also held that as per declaration form submitted by respondent, age of his son Babuda was two months in 1974, as such, he was not member of the respondent’s family on 01.01.1973 so he was excluded from respondent’s family, and the school certificate of Babuda, in which Babuda’s birth has been shown on 16.09.1971, was disbelieved. Learned Single Judge, vide impugned order, held the school certificate to be genuine and thus treating respondent’s family of 8 members, allowed writ petition and set aside orders of the lower courts. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that genuineness of school certificate was not proved by respondent in any proceedings and thus learned Single Judge has committed error in including Babuda in the family of respondent, so the appeal may be accepted and the order of learned Single Judge may be set aside whereas learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the school certificate submitted by respondent is genuine and learned Single Judge has not committed any error in treating Babuda as member of the respondent’s family and further submitted that even if Babuda is excluded from the respondent’s family, respondent’s mother Mst. Hastudi should have been included in respondent’s family and thus number of [3] members remaining same i.e. 8, appeal deserves to be dismissed. So far as respondent’s son Babuda is concerned, respondent mentioned his age as two months in the declaration form submitted on 11.05.1974, which shows that Babuda had not born before 01.01.1973. School Certificate Ex.3, in which Babuda’s date of birth has been shown as 16th September 1971, has not been proved by respondent. This certificate does not contain the date of issue. It also does not contain necessary facts regarding date of admission in the school. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on AIR 1988 SC 1796 – Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit, in which it was held that an entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under Sec.35 of the Act but the entry regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. Respondent has not placed any material to prove that Babuda’s date of birth was 16th September 1971. He, in his declaration form, mentioned the age of his children viz., Parmudi - 14 years, Sajnai – 10 years, Shanti – 7 years, Leela – 4 years, Sanwal Ram – 2 years and Babuda - 2 months. This declaration seems to be genuine because in the year 1974, Babuda’s elder brother Sanwal Ram has been shown to be of 2 years. Then, in such circumstances, Babuda, who is younger to Sanwal Ram, could not have born on 16.09.1971. Apparently, learned Single Judge was not right in including Babuda in the family of respondent on 01.01.73. [4] It is admitted position that Mst. Hastudi is mother of respondent and her name has also been shown in declaration form by the respondent. Learned Board of Revenue has held that respondent is head of the family and included respondent’s wife in the family but excluded respondent’s mother Mst. Hastudi from his family. Sec.30-B(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act defines ‘family’ as under: (a) “family” shall mean a family consisting of a husband and wife, their children and grand-children being dependent on them and the widowed mother of the husband so dependent. This clearly shows that respondent’s family consisted of his widowed mother Mst. Hastudi, wife and five children. Thus, there were total 8 members in the family of respondent and as such proceedings under ceiling law were rightly dropped by authorized officer on 18.12.1974 and there was no occasion to reopen the case. Above discussion clearly shows that respondent’s family consisted of 8 members and thus learned Single Judge has not committed any error in setting aside orders dated 12.06.1984 and 15.09.1987 passed by lower courts though on other ground, and appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, appeal of the appellant against respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. jpa/