Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) The Following questions are referred to this Bench for adjudication in pursuant to the order dt. 25.07.2002 "whether in view of affirmance of judgment in Pari Devi's case by Supreme Court vide its order dt.18.02.1994 dismissing the appeal, Division Bench decision in Ram Gopal's case is impliedly overruled? In case the answer is in the negative, which of the two divergent opinion of Division Bench lays down the law correctly -
(2.) The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that Single Bench of this Court in the case of Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 RLR 931, while setting aside the order for reopening of the ceiling proceedings as per Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1973"), held that it is not open to the authority competent to proceed again under Chapter-III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as "the Old Ceiling Law"), after the proceedings had been initiated and culminated in favour of an Agricultural Land Holder under Sec. 15(4) of the Act of 1973
(3.) The ratio of the law laid down in the case of Pari Devi (supra) was that the Old Ceiling Law and of 1973 cannot occupy the same field or the same subject matter. The judgment aforesaid was later on approved by the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Dakhan, DB Civil Writ Petition No. 228 of decided on 20.07.1984 . The special leave petitioner preferred by the State to challenge the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Dakhan I was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The law laid down in the case of Pari Devi (supra) was also adhered in State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Singh, 1986 I RLR 32 and Smt. Amarjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) RLR 544.;