Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) ALL these three writ petitions pertain to different parcels of agriculture land, which are sought to be acquired and taken possession of by the State, treating them to be surplus land in the hands of late Shri Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh, who is now represented in first of these three writ petitions by his two sons. His mother -late Smt. Roop Raj Laxmi, who too is represented by the same legal heirs, had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1416/1976 assailing various orders passed by the authorities declaring the land surplus in the hands of her son Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh and praying for direction to treat her as an independent/separate unit for the purpose of computation of ceiling limit. National Engineering Industries Ltd. has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3566/1994 assailing the order dated 8/8/1991 passed by Additional Collector (I), Jaipur declaring the land, which it purchased from late Shri Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh, as part of his surplus land and the order dated 20/5/1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amer directing Tehsildar to take possession of such land. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3927/2001 has been filed by Surendra Pal Colony Vikas Samiti, who have set up a residential colony on the land declared surplus by the competent authority in the hands of late Shri Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh with the prayer that respondent -Jaipur Development Authority be directed to regularize possession of the members of the petitioner -society at the normal rates, instead of charging the rate applicable to the government land. All the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. At the outset, it may be stated that writ petition of Smt. Roop Raj Laxmi was earlier decided by the Single Bench of this Court. On an appeal filed by the State bearing D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 45/2001 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Smt. Roop Raj Laxmi & Ors.), the said judgment of the Single Bench was set -aside by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 12/8/2008 and the matter was remanded with the direction that the Single Bench may while deciding writ petition afresh, also decide two legal issues, which earlier escaped its notice. Those questions shall be dealt with at the appropriate place hereinafter.
(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding these writ petitions are that Sub Divisional Officer, Amer by order dated 30/10/1971 after obtaining report from Tehsildar held that assessee Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh possessed 66 bighas and 19 biswas of surplus land. Sub Divisional Officer, Amer passed the aforesaid order dated 30/10/1971 (Ann. 1 in SBCWP No. 1416/1976 and Ann. 2 in SBCWP No. 3566/1994) under Chapter -IIIB of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (shall hereinafter be referred as the "Act of 1955") (old ceiling law) and held that total holding after allowing the transfers as discussed comes to 129.1/3 standard acres. He recognized the transfers of 129.1/3 standard acres including the one of 47.8 bighas of land made to National Engineering Industry Ltd. by Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh. Sub Divisional Officer, Amer de -recognized the transfers made in favour of other parties and held that assessee had 129.1/3 standard acres of land. Since his family consists of less than five members he was entitled to retain only 30 standard acres of land. Balance 99.1/3 standard acres of land was to be acquired from him. It was further directed that in view of the stay order dated 4/5/1971 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 343/1971 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 380/1971 filed by assessee -late Shri Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh, he shall not be dispossessed and possession may not be taken now. Eventually, the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17/9/1973. Sub Divisional Officer, Amer then vide, order dated 6/3/1974 directed Tehsildar to take possession of the surplus land pursuant to the aforesaid order. The assessee, his wife and sons as also the State Government filed appeals challenging the orders dated 30/10/1971 and 6/3/1974 before the Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its order dated 13/6/1975. dismissed the appeals; The assessee -late Shri Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh, his wife and sons filed revision petition before the Board of; Revenue. Board of Revenue also dismissed the revision petition but granted liberty to the assessee to exercise his option for surrender of land in ceiling limit subject to second proviso to sub -sec. (2) of Section 30E of the Act of 1955. The Sub Divisional Officer, Amer passed an order on 18/10/1976 excluding the land measuring 11 bighas 15 biswas (gair mumkin land) from ceiling limit in favour of Shri Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh. Mutation of land bearing khasra Nos. 10, 17, 92 & 93 were attested in favour of petitioner -National Engineering Industries Ltd. on 25/3/1966. It was thereafter that the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (shall hereinafter be referred as the "Act of 1973") (new ceiling law) passed orders on 23/8/1978 and 7/9/1978 for reopening of the ceiling case and determination of surplus land of Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh as decided by the Sub Divisional Officer, Amer vide orders dated 30/10/1971 and 18/10/1976. The Additional Collector (I), Jaipur by his order dated 27/12/1978 now held that transfer of the land by the assessee to the petitioner -National Engineering Industry Ltd. vide sale -deed dated 25/3/1966 was invalid. Assessee Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh as well as the State filed appeals against the order of Assistant Collector (I), Jaipur before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which dismissed both the appeals. Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh then filed appeal before the Board of Revenue, which partly allowed the appeal vide order, dated 21/5/1980 and set -aside the order dated 27/12/1978 passed by Additional Collector (I), Jaipur and remanded the matter. The Additional Collector (I), Jaipur by his order dated 20/4/1982 then held that assessee Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh possessed 66 bighas and 19 biswas of the land in excess of the ceiling limit including the land transferred to the petitioner -NEI. Assessee was granted fifteen days time to give his option as per Section 30E of the Act of 1955 for surrendering the said excess land to the State. The legal heirs of the assessee i.e. respondents No. 5 and 6, filed option with the Additional Collector (I), Jaipur in furtherance of the order dated 30/4/1982 and land transferred to the petitioner -company was also sought to be surrendered. Additional Collector (I), Jaipur on that basis without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, permitted respondents No. 5 and 6 to retain the land of their choice but as per option submitted by the said respondents directed the concerned Tehsildar to take possession of the surrendered lands including the land sold by the assessee to the petitioner -NEI. Tehsildar suddenly visited the factory premises of petitioner -NEI on 5/6/1994 and sought to lock the factory premises and take possession of 47 bighas and 8 biswas of land of the petitioner's factory on the strength of the order dated 20/5/1994 issued to him by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jaipur. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner -National Engineering Company has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3566/1994.
(3.) SHRI Mahendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for petitioner -National Engineering Ltd. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3566/1994 has argued that the Board of Revenue is highest judicial Court in the land revenue matters and finality has been given to its judgments. Neither the State nor the Assistant Collector (I), Jaipur has any competence to reopen its order. The pre -requisite condition for reopening of a ceiling case as provided in second proviso to sub -section (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 1973 is that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in subsection (1).or in sub -Section (2) shall be directed to be re -opened and decided afresh under the said sub -sections unless the State Government is satisfied that such order is required to be re -opened on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which has since come to the notice of the State or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. None of these parameters are satisfied in the present case. In this matter, not only the assessee but the State Government also filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which dismissed both the appeals. State Government did not seek to file any further appeal against that judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority and thus that judgment attained finality. It was argued that the final order dated 20/4/1982 to re -open the case was passed without any notice or providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner -NEI. The assessee has wrongly given option of the land, which it had already transferred to the petitioner -company. He ought to have given option of unencumbered land. Learned counsel in" support of his argument, has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Badrilal vs. State of Rajasthan, : 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 256. Learned counsel referring to Section 301 of the Act of 1955 argued that crucial date for determining the excess land in the hands of the assessee is 1/4/1966, whereas sale -deed dated 2573/1966 (Ann. 1) annexed with SBCWP No. 3566/1994 for sale of the land in favour of petitioner -company was executed by the assessee on 25/3/1966. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid provision, this land cannot be said to be excess in the hands of the erstwhile owner/asses see Rao Rawal Rajeshwar Singh. Petitioner -NEI after purchasing the land, made huge investments on the land and set up an Industry. Petitioner -company is running the ball bearing factory on the disputed land for last fifty years.;