- (1.) THE State has come up in this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 21.11.1985 (Annexure-3) with the prayer that the judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Ajmer dated 6.2.1984 (Annexure-2) be ordered to be maintained.
(2.) THE SDO Kekri initiated ceiling proceedings under Chapter III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter called as the old law) against the respondent No.1 Hanuman Singh and the declared certain area to be surplus vide its order dated 27.3.1971. Aggrieved against this order the respondent No.1 had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was decided in favour of the respondent No.1, but lateron on 29.9.1978 in exercise of the powers conferred u/Sec. 15(2) of the New Act, the State Govt. ordered reopening of the case of the respondent and directed the Additional Collector, Ajmer for taking necessary action and in pursuance of the order passed by the State Government the land matter of the respondent No.1 was reopened. The State had felt the necessity of re-opening the case on the reason that the land belonging to the wife had not been clubbed and that some other members of the family should have been considered to be the members of the family as per the definition of the family as per the definition of the family u/S. 30-B of the Act and their property should have been clubbed with the property of the petitioner. Necessity was also felt on the reason that the transfers as enumerated u/Sec. 30-D and 30-DD were not properly considered. It was found that as a matter of fact the petitioner was holding a land of 124.52 standard acres instead of 70.46 standard acres and thus the subordinate officers had wrongly recorded about the total holding of the land of the petitioner. Vide Annexure-2 order dated 6.2.1984, the Addl. Collector had held that the non-petitioner was holding a land of 124.52 standard acres on 1.4.1966 and after taking into consideration the members of the family, he was allowed to retain 50 standard acres of land and the remaining land measuring 74.52 standard acres was ordered to be acquired as surplus. The order Annexure-2 was challenged by way of an appeal filed before the Board of Revenue. Vide Annexure-3 dated 21.1.1985, Bar had set aside the order of the Additional Collector (Annexure-2). The Board of Revenue had held that the ceiling proceedings were initiated against the appellant under the new Act by the authorised SDO Kekri and had decided the matter on 23.12.1974 which is said not to have been challenged by the State and therefore, the Board of Revenue relying on Pari Devi's case (1) was of the opinion that the matter could not be reopened u/Sec. 15(1) or 15(2) of the New Act. The State has come up in the writ petition with the submission that the respondent No.1 had nine members in the family and was entitled to 15 standards acres of land over and above the permissible surplus area and the Additional Collector vide its order Annexure-2 had passed a legal order in accordance with law and the Board of Revenue had set aside the order Annexure-2 without there being any cogent reason to set aside and in violation of the law as laid down by this court.
(3.) IT is further submitted that the land of the wife and the non-petitioner was clubbed together as was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vyasendra (2). IT is further submitted that Pari Devi's case relied upon by the Board of Revenue had been distinguished by this court by the Division Bench of this Court. A prayer has been made to set aside the order of the Board of Revenue Annexure-3 and to restore the order dated 6.2.1983. No reply was filed by the contesting respondent. The only question which is to be determined by this court is whether according to the pleadings, once the case has been decided even under the New Act, whether the powers can be exercised by the State in reopening the ceiling matter under the provisions of Section 15(1) and 15(2) of the Act of 1973. ;