Ajit Singh, J. - (1.) This intra -Court appeal is directed against the order dt. 16.9.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's writ petition No. 2762/1987. The appellant is a landlord. Sub -Divisional Officer, Ramganj Mandi initiated proceedings under Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the appellant. The proceedings were, however, dropped on 12.8.1971. But later, when the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short 'the New Ceiling Act') came into force, Sub -Divisional Officer, Baran, reconsidered the case of appellant and asked him to furnish a return under Sec. 10. The case was subsequently transferred to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Kota, who vide order dt. 17.4.1976 held that appellant was having khatedari over 209 bigha 13 biswa of land, equivalent to 83.86 ordinary acre. The Sub -Divisional Officer also held that appellant was entitled to retain 48 ordinary acre of land and declared the remaining 35.86 ordinary acre as surplus. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dt. 02.07.1976.
(2.) Subsequent to the passing of orders dt. 17.04.1976 and 02.07.1976, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan issued notice to the appellant to the effect that there has been wrong calculation in regard to actual holding of land and also in regard to his family members. The Deputy Secretary then, after hearing the appellant, vide order dt. 25.05.1981 directed for reopening of his case and referred the matter to the Addl. Collector, Baran. And in compliance of the order dt. 25.05.1981, the Addl. Collector, Baran, decided the case afresh and vide order dt. 10.06.1983 held that actual holding of the appellant was 311 bigha 13 biswa of land and not 209 bigha and 13 biswa, as was held earlier. He also, having regard to the three members in the family of the appellant on the appointed day, held that appellant was entitled to retain 30 standard acre of land and declared remaining 27 acre of land as surplus. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dt. 26.8.1987. Undeterred, the appellant filed writ petition No. 2762/1987, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order.
(3.) It is mainly argued on behalf of the appellant that once his case was dropped under the Old Ceiling Act or under the New Ceiling Act, the authorities had no jurisdiction to reopen the same. The learned Addl. Advocate General in reply submitted that Sec. 15 of the New Ceiling Act confers ample powers on the authority to reopen cases.;