- (1.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record in this matter relating to agricultural land ceiling proceedings, this Court is of the view that on a pertinent issue, the matter requires reconsideration by the Board of Revenue ('the Board') and hence, without comments on the merits of the case either way, it appears just and proper that the appeal bearing number Ceiling/Ganganagar/17/96 be restored to the file of the Board for consideration afresh and in accordance with law.
(2.) THIS Court finds the procedure for remitting the issue to the Board necessary in view of the submissions as made in the writ petition that the ceiling proceedings against the assessee Shri Narain Singh under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the old ceiling law') were dropped by the order dated 20.03.1970; and 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 again considered the matter against the said assessee and, again, dropped the proceedings by his order dated 19.09.1975. It is contended that the ceiling case in relation to the assessee 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan: 1984 RLR 931, which has been held operative by the Larger Bench of this Court in Sahas Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the proceedings in relation to the assessee could not have been reopened under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973.
(3.) IN Sahas Karan (supra) the Hon'ble Larger Bench has answered the reference on 13.03.2011 as follows: "In the case of Pari Devi (supra) leave to appeal was granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court was invoked, thus, the order passed in appeal would certainly attract the doctrine of merger and that affirms the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pari Devi. That being the position of law, the law laid down in the case of Ram Gopal is not a correct one, that stands impliedly overruled and the law laid down in Pari Devi's case (supra) holds the field in the subject matter. The reference made is answered accordingly." ;