Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners, said to have purchased different parcels of agricultural land situated at Chak 29 BG Tehsil Anupgarh, have filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings whereby the land in question is sought to be resumed in the agricultural land ceiling proceedings concerning their predecessor Shri Narendra Singh (represented by the Respondent No. 5 herein).
(2.) IT is pointed out, inter alia, that after submission of the requisite declaration by the Assessee Shri Narendra Singh, the Authorised Officer dropped the ceiling proceedings under Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the old ceiling law') against him by the order dated 19.04.1971 (Annex.2) as passed in Ceiling Case No. 4/1971. It is also submitted that after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ('the Act of 1973'/'the new ceiling law'), the Authorised Officer considered the matter in Ceiling Case No. 909/1973 and, again, dropped the proceedings by his order dated 24.03.1975 (Annex.3). It is contended that the ceiling case in relation to the Assessee Narendra Singh having been decided under the old ceiling law (i.e., the provisions contained in Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) and so also under the new ceiling law (i.e., the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973), as per the ratio of the decision in Smt. Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan:, 1984 RLR 931, the proceedings could not have been re -opened under the old ceiling law. With these submissions, the Petitioners seek to question the attempt on the part of the Respondents in re -opening the proceedings in relation to their predecessor under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 and the order as passed by the Additional Collector (Admn.) Sriganganagar on 25.01.1982 (Annex.4). The Respondents in their reply have, inter alia, contended that the law laid down in Pari Devi's case (supra) did not remain a good law in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan:, 1989 (1) RLW 670.
(3.) IT is, however, an admitted position now that since after filing of this writ petition and the reply, the matter in issue has been set at rest by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sahas Karan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: CWP No. 2598/1989.;