R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dt. 23.07.1984 passed by the Additional Collector and the orders dt. 02.05.1991 and 13.01.1992 passed by the Board of Revenue. By the first order, the Additional Collector had declared certain land which belonged to Shri Kishan Gopal, respondent No. 4, as surplus land under the Rajasthan Acquisition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ('the Act', in short). Through, the second and third orders, the Board of Revenue had upheld the order dt. 23.07.1984.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Kishan Gopal was owner of ninty -five bighas and sixteen biswas of land in Keshorai Pattan and in few other villages. After coming into force of the Act of 1973, the proceedings were commenced against Kishan Gopal. However, vide order dt. 14.04.1976, the authorized officer dropped the proceedings against Kishan Gopal, on the ground that he did not hold any land in excess of the ceiling limit as prescribed by the Act. After the dropping of the proceedings, vide registered sale deed dt. 28.06.1980, Kishan Gopal, sold the land measuring fourteen bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 1471 to the petitioner. Similarly, he sold another patch of fourteen bighas of land situated in the same Khasra i.e., Khasra No. 1471 to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner bought twenty -eight bighas of land in Khasra No. 1471. Pursuant to the said registered sale -deed, the name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue record. Further, vide sale -deed dt. 19.02.1981, Kishan Gopal transferred the remaining land, measuring six bighas and two biswas situated in Khasra No. 1471 and also transferred three bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 1461 to the petitioner. But, subsequent to the sale of land by Kishan Gopal to the petitioner, vide order dt. 25.05.1985, the State Government directed that ceiling proceedings against Kishan Gopal should be reopened under Section 15(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Additional Collector reopened the proceedings against Kishan Gopal. However, it is pertinent to point out that during the entire proceedings, the Additional Collector did not issue any notice to the petitioner. Yet, vide order dt. 23.07.1984, the Additional Collector directed that the land measuring seventeen bighas and ten biswas from khasra No. 1471 should be acquired as the land exceeds to ceiling limit. Since, the petitioner had already bought the land measuring seventeen bighas and ten biswas of land in Khasra No. 1471, obviously, he was aggrieved by the order dt. 23.07.1984. Thus, he filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. However, vide order dt. 02.05.1991, the Board rejected the appeal ostensibly on the ground that their case was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court given in Kesa and Ors. v. State of Raj., 1987 (1) RLR 449. The petitioner subsequently filed a review petition. However, vide order dt. 13.01.1992 the review petition was rejected. Hence, this writ petition before this Court. Ms. Anita Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act prescribe the procedure which needs to be followed by the Additional Collector before reopening the case under Section 15 of the Act. However, in the present case, the said procedure has not been followed. Secondly, in the order dt. 23.07.1984, the Additional Collector has clearly noted that the part of land was sold by Kishan Gopal to the petitioner and entries have been made in the revenue record. However, despite this, no notice was ever issued to the petitioner and an adverse order has been passed by the Additional Collector without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thirdly, under Section 23(2A), any person aggrieved by the decision under Section 15 has a right to file an appeal before the Board. It is precisely under this provision that the appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Board. Yet, while ignoring the said provision, the Board has relied upon the case of Kesa and Ors. (supra). According to the learned Counsel, the case of Kesa and Ors. (supra) arose under Chapter III -B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (the Old Ceiling law) and not under the Act of 1973. Therefore, the said decision is totally inapplicable to the appeal filed by the petitioner. Lastly the order dt. 13.01.1982 has been passed in a most mechanical manner. Hence, it is unsustainable.
(3.) MR . Zakawat Ali, the learned Dy. Government Advocate, has contended that Mr. Kishan Gopal had not produced any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the land had been sold by him to the petitioner. In absence of such an evidence, the Additional Collector was justified in not issuing any notice to the petitioner. Thus, he has supported the impugned orders.;