B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1982 contained in Annex. 3 to the petition, passed by the Board of Revenue, respondent No. 2, by which the judgment and order of the Addl. Collector, Sri Ganganagar, dated 25.2.1980 contained in Annex. 2 to the petition has been upheld.
(2.) PETITIONER claims that he is having agricultural land in the revenues State of village Ravala, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar and on commencement of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), proceedings were initiated against him. It was held that the petitioner was having 186 bighas of irrigated land and ten bighas of barani land. The authorised officer accepted the case of the petitioner and giving him benefit of three units as he has two major sons and taking into consideration the intensity of the irrigation, allowed 64 bighas of land on each unit and in this way. vide order dt. 12.3.1976 contained in Annex. 1, it was held that petitioner was not having any surplus land. The State Govt. in exercise of its power under Section 15(1) of the new Ceiling Act issued a notice to the petitioner and ultimately reopened the case vide order dated 1.2.1979. While considering the case of the petitioner again, it was held that he was entitled only to retain 150 bighas of land in all the three units and an area of 39.7 bighas was declared as surplus vide order dated. 25.2.1980 contained in Annex. 2 to the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue and the same has been rejected by the judgment and order dated 29.4.1982 contained in Annex. 3 to this petition. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) THIS court vide judgment and order dated 3.1.1995 dismissed the writ petition by observing that the points raised and sought to be argued in this petition were not raised before the courts below nor any document or affidavit was filed to the effect that such pleas had been raised. The petitioner's counsel was not allowed to agitate new points. However, review petition No. 42/97 was filed by Prem Shanker, the legal heir of petitioner, on the ground that at the time of delivery of judgment, sole petitioner Mamraj was not alive as he had died intestate on 27th April, 1986 and he had not been aware of the pendency of said writ petition. This court vide its order dated 24.7.1997. recalled the earlier judgment and order dated 3.1.1995 and directed the re -hearing of the petition.;