- (1.) THE appellants have preferred this appeal u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court dated 10/12/1996 whereby the writ petition No. 851/90 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be stated as follows. After coming into force of the provisions of Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, proceedings were initiated by the S. D. O. , Parbatsar against late Shri Kalyan Singh for determination of the ceiling area. After holding the inquiry, the learned S. D. O. came to the conclusion that no surplus land was being held by Shri Kalyan Singh. Ceiling proceedings were, therefore, dropped by his order dated 6/11/1971. However, the State Government passed an order on 4/2/1981 u/s. 15 (2) of the Imposition of Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the Additional Collector was directed to re-open the case of Kalyan Singh and render decision afresh. During the pendency of the above proceedings, Kalyan Singh expired and the present appellants were taken on record as his legal representatives. Pursuant to the order dated 4/2/1981, the learned Additional Collector conducted inquiry and came to the conclusion that late Kalyan Singh was holding 359. 4 bighas of land which also included land held by his sons. After computation, he declared 156. 05 bighas of land (Barani Gr. II) as surplus by his order dated 18/6/1984. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which was partly allowed. THE Board of Revenue held that all the sons of Kalyan Singh could not be clubbed for the purpose of determination of ceiling area in respect of Kalyan Singh. Accordingly, after computation, the Board of Revenue held that late Kalyan Singh was holding 46. 56 standard acres and since he was entitled to hold only 30 standard acres. THE remaining land 16. 5 standard acres was decla- red as surplus by an order dated 4/6/1989. The appellants thereafter filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue but the same was rejected by the order dated 24/10/1989. The appellants felt aggrieved and filed the above writ petition against the order of the Board of Revenue. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition on the ground that the D. B. of this Court in Mangat Singh vs. Board of Revenue (writ petition no. 1602/81) decided on 26/8/1992 that Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Govt. Land), Rules, 1963 was not ultravires of Sec. 30-C. The above decision of the D. B. clearly covered the contentions raised by the appellants in that writ. We have heard Shri S. N. Sharma learned counsel for the appellants. He has contended that the above D. B. decision of this court requires re-consideration inasmuch as the points raised by him were not covered in that decision. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri Sharma is that Sec. 30-C prescribes the extent of ceiling area. The explanation appended to Sec. 30-C is very important and it defines the meaning of "standard acre". The S. D. O. concerned is invested with the power to make the relevant legal inquiry for ascertaining the ceiling area of a particular agriculturist. The subject matter of his inquiry would involve the determination of the standard acre in respect of the land in question. For making this inquiry, the S. D. O. is required to consider various factors. The agricultural lands in Rajasthan are not similarly situated as its productive capacity differs from place to place loo- king to the irrigation facilities, soil condition and other local factors. In order to ensure a rational inquiry within the parametres of Sec. 30-C, the S. D. O. is required to exercise his discretion with special reference to the above factors. Each matter will differ because the situation of the lands will differ from place to place. By enacting Rule 19, the State Government has totally curbed the scope of inquiry to be conducted by the S. D. O. Now in view of the provisions contained in Sec. 19, the S. D. O. will have no discretion and follow the fixed guide-lines which cannot be correct and appropriate in relation to varying situation of land and other factors. The State Government, by enacting Rule 19, has curtailed the scope of inquiry in accordance with the explanation of Sec. 30-C of the Act. According to him in order to effectuate the mandate of explanation to Sec. 30-C of the Act, the S. D. O. has to apply different criteria to different lands according to the soil condition, irrigation facilities and other local factors. Now, by prescribing a fixed guide-line in respect of all lands, the mandate of explanation to Sec. 30-C of the Act has been violated. He therefore, submitted that the matter may be referred to a Larger Bench for re- consideration of the view taken in the above D. B. matter. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Shri Sharma. We have also carefully perused the judgment in Mangar Ram's case. It may be stated that in the D. B. , Sec. 30- C, Sec. 257 of the Tenancy Act, Rule 19, Sec. 148 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and Annex. 1 of Rule 15 were consi- dered. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned Judges were aware of the fact that the expression "standard acre" was further explained by the Explanation as it was not possible to give uniform definition of the expression "standard acre" because the productive capacity of the land differs from place to place looking to the geographical conditions and the irrigation facilities. It was also stated in the jud- gment that all lands in Rajasthan are not similarly situated as productive capacity differs from place to place looking to the irrigation facilities, soil condition and other prescribed considerations. It observed : "therefore, in order to facilitate this exercise certain assessment cir- cles or assessment groups, which were formed during the settlement operations under Sec. 149 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (referred to hereinafter as `the Act of 1956') were adopted. Sec. 149 lays down that the Settlement Officer shall form assessment circles or assessment groups on the basis of economic survey as contained in Sec. 148 of the Act of 1956". It was further observed that a combined reading of Sections 148 and 149 of the Land Revenue Act shows that assessment circles have been made on the basis of irrigation facilities, standard of cultivation, expenses of cultivation and the cost of cultivator in maintaining himself and his family, existence of markets in the vicinity of the district or area, means of cultivation and improvements, size of the holding and extent of indebtedness. It was then observed : "therefore, all this exercise which has been undertaken under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has been adopted as a basis for formation of the assessment circles or assessment groups. These assess-ment groups/circles have been adopted mutatis mutandis for the pur- poses of determining the ceiling area. The assessment circles/groups formed under Sec. 149 of the Act of 1956 have been grouped as ceiling groups and the same has been formed as Annex. 1 to these rules, and it has been further classified on the basis of the soil classes mentioned in column 2 of Part A of this Annex. 1 and has been shown in columns 3 to 7 of the same part being the ceiling group in the village mentioned in column 2 of part B of this Annexure". It was then concluded : "therefore, a combined reading of these provisions shows that the standard value of each standard acre has been prescribed by the Government by framing these Rules and keeping in view the principles which have been laid down in the Act and the same is formulated as a basis which has been appended with the Rules as Appendix A as reproduced above. Therefore, in view of the combined reading of the- se Rules it is not correct to argue that Rule 19 has gone beyond the provisions of Sec. 30-C of the Act".
(3.) AFTER making extensive reference to the above judgment, we are satisfied that the D. B. considered the matter in all respects and after exhaustive discussion held that Rule 19 is not ultravires of Sec. 30-C of the Act. We entirely agree with the view expressed by the D. B. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to accede to the arguments of Shri Sharma for making a reference to re-consider the above judgment. For the above reasons, we dismiss the appeal. .;