NATHULAL Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
M.C.JAIN, J. -
(1.)THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated May 17, 1976 (Anx. 3), whereby, the present petitioner's revision was dismissed.
(2.)A notice Under Section 11 (Anx. 6) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was issued to the petitioner and ceiling proceedings were initiated. The Sub -divisional Officer determined the petitioner's ceiling area by his order dated February 11, 1975 (Anx. 1). The Sub -divisional Officer also imposed penalty in respect of the excess land treating him to be a trespasser. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The said appeal was partly allowed. The order imposing the penalty was set aside. The rest of the objections were not pressed and were withdrawn by the appellant before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Against the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated Aug. 26, 1975 (Anx. 2), a revision petition was preferred before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue dismissed the revision petition and the petitioner was not allowed to agitate the grounds, which were withdrawn before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The positive statement mentioned by the Revenue Appellate Authority, in its order relating to the withdrawal of the ground was presumed to be correct as no affidavit was filed by the counsel, who argued the case before the Revenue Appellate Authority.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3.)ON behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Garg urged that when the petitioner was served a notice Under Section 11 of the New Ceiling Law, the proceedings should have been taken under the New Ceiling Law and not taken under the Old Law, so, the entire proceedings are bad. I am unable to agree with the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner land -holder had already submitted his declaration as back as 30 -11 -1970 and that declaration was not finalized and processed and in the meantime, the New Ceiling Law came into force. It appears that the Sub -divisional Officer, after issuance of the notice Under Section 11 of the New Ceiling Law proceeded to complete the petitioner's ceiling case on the declaration submitted by the petitioner in the year 1970. The petitioner himself has considered that his ceiling case was determined under the Old Ceiling Law, that is why, preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and thereafter, a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my opinion, the above contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no substance. So far as the other grounds are concerned, I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioner can not be allowed to agitate the other grounds in view of the categorical and positive statement made of behalf of the petitioner that the other grounds have been withdrawn by him through his counsel appearing before the Revenue Appellate Authority.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.