- (1.) AT the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition has been finally heard at this stage itself.
(2.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the proceedings sought to be adopted by the respondent-State while treating him a trespasser over the land in question. The submission of the petitioner is that his father purchased the land in question at Chak 29 GB, Tehsil Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar at Stone No.107/19 (old), as now comprised in new Khasra No.25, admeasuring 8 bighas. The land in question is said to have been purchased from one Shri Narendra Singh (now represented by his son ­ respondent No.5) but is alleged to have been resumed in the re-opened agricultural land ceiling proceedings against the said Shri Narendra Singh. In sum and substance, the submission of the petitioner is that the ceilings proceedings against the assessee Shri Narendra Singh were dropped under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the old ceiling law') by the order dated 19.04.1971. It is further submitted that 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 again the matter against the said assessee and, again, dropped the proceedings by his order dated 24.03.1975. 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 Vs. State of Rajasthan: 1984 RLR 931, the proceedings could not have been re-opened under the old ceiling law. With these submissions, the petitioner seeks to question the alleged re-opened proceedings in relation to his predecessor under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 and the orders passed thereupon.
(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned Government Counsel is not in a position to controvert, that the matter in issue has been set at rest by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sahas Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: CWP No. 2598/1989 wherein, on the specific reference made on the question about the law governing the field, particularly when the decision in Pari Devi's case had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Larger Bench has answered the reference on 13.04.2011 as under:- "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." ;