PARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. BANERJEE. C J. -
(1.)THIS rule is directed against an order passed by the learned Member. Board of Revenue, in Ceiling Appeal No. 4 of 1979 (CNS). The share of the appellant in the agricultural land was 67 bighas 13 biswas. Ceiling proceeding was initiated under the old Ceiling Law and was dropped by the S.D.O., Ganganagar, by his order dated 17.3.1972. Subsequently, proceeding was initiated under the New Ceiling Law. All these were also dropped on 19.11. 1975. The State Government, however, ordered reopening of the proceedings under the old Ceiling Law on 19.10.1978, which was reheard by the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar and the Additional! Collector found that the assessee was in possession of 67 bighas 13 biswas of land of which he was entitled to retain 46 bighas and 8 biswas 21 bighas was ordered to be acquired. It appears that two proceedings were taken against the petitioner: one under the old Ceiling Law and the other under the New Ceiling Law. Under the New Ceiling Law, the proceeding was dropped, or, in other words, it must be held that there was no excess land with the petitioner under the new Ceiling Law. In case No. 279 of 1973 under the new Ceiling Law, it was found that transfers were bona fide and the area, after the transfer, was not surplus. THIS order has become final as the State Government did not challenge the order by preferring an appeal as is incumbent under the law. Thereafter, the State Government, peculiarly enough, proceded under Section 15(2) of the new Ceiling Law by which old ceiling cases can be reopened. After the proceeding had been initiated, and culminated in favour of the petitioner under Section 15(4) of the new Ceiling Law, it is not open to the respondent to proceed again under the old Ceiling Law, or, in other words, both the old Ceiling Law and the new Ceiling Law cannot occupy the same field or in the same subject matter. Admittedly, in this case, new Ceiling Law case was in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, in my opinion, the proceeding under Section 15(2) was, on the face of it, without jurisdiction.
(2.)I, therefore, set aside all the orders, including the orders of the Board of Revenue made under Section 15(2) of the new Ceiling Act for reopening an order passed under the old Ceiling Law. The rule is, therefore, made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.