MILAP CHAND JAIN,J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against the order of the Government dated October 13, 1978 passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (Revenue Department), Jaipur under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), where by, the petitioners' ceiling cases were reopened on the ground that the orders of the Authorised Officer, Hanumangarh dated April 15, 1976, the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated June 26,1976 and of the Board of Revenue dated September 18, 1976 are not according to the provisions of the Act and are against the interest of the Government and there are mistakes apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Board of Revenue.
(2.) THESE writ petitions have come up on a reference made by the learned Single Judge as the question involved, are questions of great importance. We may advert to some relevant facts. The agricultural land was original held by one Gheru Lal Maheshwari in village Meharwala and Jalalabad. Gheru Lal adopted Shri Bal Chand son of Shri Banshi Lal. After that adoption, he was blessed with a son Shri Jagannath. Seri Gheru Lal died in the year 1921. After his death, his entire agricultural land devolved in moiety on his two sons Shri Bal Chand and Shri Jagannath and were recorded in their names. Shri Bal Chand had four sons. Shri Jagannath died issueless in 1921. But before his death, he adopted Deen Dayal, son of Shri Bal Chand as his son. Shri Bal Chand died on 6 -2 -1974. The agricultural land of village Maharwala came under the Rajasthan Canal Project Area in 7 NDR and the land of village Jalalabad fell in the Bhakra Canal Project Area in Chak Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 SLW. The petitioners' case further is that in the year 1953, Shri Bal Chand and Shri Deen Dayal surrendered some agricultural lands from their joint Khata in favour of Shanker Lal, Lalit Mohan, Sharat Kumar and Purshottam Lal by a registered -deed dated 25 -2 -1953, Shri Shanker Lal, Purshottam Lal and Lalit Mohan are the sons of Shri Bal Chand and Sharat Kumar is the son of Shri Deen Dayal, who went in adoption to Shri Jagannath. The entire lands were recorded in the joint Khata of Bal Chand, Deen Dayal, Shanker Lal, Purshottam Lal, Lalit Mohan and Sharat Kumar. In the year 1962, the land situated in Jalalabad was divided in pursuance of the order No. 1580 dated 13 -12 -1962 in Case No. 7 of 1961 of the court of Sub -Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh and mutation was accordingly effected. By the subsequent suit No. 327 of 1965, the agricultural land situated in village Maharwala was also divided in pursuance of the decree passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 20 -4 -1966. That land was also mutated in their names in accordance with the decree. Shri Deen Dayal, Shanker Lal, Purshottam Lal and Lalit Mohan divided their holdings by family settlement each between himself and his wife and sons. They also pooled their holdings in the Sanyukt Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. The wives and sons of these four persons vested their holdings some in Navyug Farmers, and Modern Cultivators partnerhip firms at Maharwala registered on 15 -3 -1970. Shri Bal Chand also transferred his land to one Sharda Trust on 10 -3 -1970. The Deputy Secretary Revenue (Ceiling) issued notices under Section 15 of the Act to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why their entire ceiling cases be not reopened. After hearing the petitioners, the Deputy Secretary passed the impugned order for reopening the petitioners' ceiling cases. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Government, these writ petitions have been filed.
(3.) THE main ground of attack is that the order of the State Government is without jurisdiction in as much as there were no grounds for re -opening of the ceiling cases. According to the petitioners, the order of the Board of Revenue was reopened by the State Government on the ground that the Board of Revenue has committed some mistake or errors apparent on the face of the record. Under the third proviso to Sub -Section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the final order passed by the Board of Revenue in the matter referred to in subsection (1) or in Sub -Section (2) can be directed to be re -opened and decided afresh if 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 its notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioners' case is that there are no mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record. As such, the State Government has no jurisdiction to re -open the ceiling cases of the petitioners.;