RAVANI, CJ. - (1.) UNDER the Land Holding and Excess of Ceiling Area Law, as prevailed before 1. 1. 73, on 13. 1. 66 the land holder, whose legal representatives are the writ petitioners, filed return. While that return was still pending before the Revenue Authorities, the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, came into force with effect from 1. 1. 73 and under the new Act a notice dated 19. 4. 75 was issued to the legal representatives of the original land owner under Section 11 (1) of the Act and on the basis of that notice the legal representatives filed a return and that was succeeded by an order Annexure-3 dated 16. 4. 76.
(2.) THE land owners challenged the notice dated 19. 4. 1975 as also the order Annexure-3 dated 16. 4. 1976 passed pursuant to the notice on the ground that the Authorities are taking proceedings under the 1973 Act whereas by virtue of Section 15 (2) of the 1973 Act the proceedings had to be completed under the old Act as it prevailed before 1. 1. 73. Learned Single Judge found favour with the point and allowed the writ petition and quashed the notice of 19. 4. 75 as also the order Annexure-3 dated 16. 4. 76 with liberty to the Government to proceed in accordance with the old law on the basis of the returns filed by the predecessors in interest of the writ petitioners on 13. 1. 1966. This decision was rendered by the then Chief Justice on 16. 8. 1984. THE State filed the Special Appeal. The argument raised before us on behalf of the State is that the proceedings should have been allowed to continue under the old Act and the learned Chief Justice has quashed the proceedings under the old Act as well. We are in agreement with the counsel for the State in regard to take proceedings under the old Act but we are not in agreement with the counsel that the Chief Justice has quashed the proceedings under the old Act. We have already indicated in our order and the original order is before us and it clearly says that the respondents will be entitled to proceed in accordance with the old Law on the basis of the returns filed on 13. 1. 66. The law is clear on the basis of the judgments cited by both the sides that once proceedings initiated under the law, they have to be completed under the old law despite the coming into force of the new law. The new law gives power to the State to re-open the cases decided on the basis of the old law but we have not reached that stage in this case so far. As and when final decision is taken in this case by the concerning authorities under the old law and thereafter if that order is prejudicial to the State, the matter can be reopened and decided afresh in accordance with law. For the reasons recorded above, we find the Appeal to be without merit and the sa|me is dismissed without costs. . ;