JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners by this writ petition seek to quash the orders of the Sub-Divisional officer, Chhabra dated September 27, 1975 (Anx.5). of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated March 2, 1976 (Anx.7) and of the Board of Revenue dated March 30, 1976 (Anx 8) arising for proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law. 2. I may gave a brief history of the case. 3. The petitioner Gopal submitted his declaration in respect of his holding in which he stated that the total holding consists of 183 Bighas 2 Biswas land. He has 1/2 share and the remaining 1/2 share is of his son Jankilal. The Sub-Divisional Officer considered that there are two units; one of the declarant Gopal and the other of his co-tenat Jankilal, and on that basis, after excluding 60 standard Acres of land ordered to resume 11.30 Standarad Acres. An appeal was preferred before the Revenue appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority, however, remanded the case back to the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated May 14, 1975 with a direction that notice may be issued to Jankilal under r.14 of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Government Rules, 1963. After notice to Jankilal, the Sub Divisional Officer ordered to resume 5.65 standard Acres of land each of Janki Lal and Gopal. Their appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the revision before the Board of Revenue were dismissed. 4. On behalf of the petitioner Gopal, his learned counsel Shri C. K. Garg urged that the excess land of Gopal ordered to be resumed is only a fragment and so under Section 30-1 (2) the excess land of Gopal is not liable to be resumed. The excess land is also measured by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Standard Acres and it appears that the contention was founded by Shri Garg on the basis of the Standard Acres. What constitutes a fragment is a question. which can be answered with reference to Rule 20. Rule 20 provides that the area representing a fragment for the purpose of sub-sec. (2) of Section 30-1 shall be those shown in Annexure II of the Rules. In Tehsil Atru Distt. Kota. in Annx. II, six ordinary acres of unirrigated barani land would be considered to be a fragment. It would also appear from Annx. Rule 20 provides that the area representing a fragment for the purpose of sub-sec. (2) of Section 30-1 shall be those shown in Annexure II of the Rules. In Tehsil Atru Distt. Kota. in Annx. II, six ordinary acres of unirrigated barani land would be considered to be a fragment. It would also appear from Annx. II that the fragment is to be measured as an ordinary acres and not by the Standard acres. It can not be disputed that the excess land of the petitioner Gopal is more than 6 ordinary Acres and so, the excess land cannot be taken as fragment. The total excess land will come to 14 Bighas, which if computed would come to more than 9 acres. Thus, in my opinion, the contention of Shri Garg is devoid of any force that the excess land of the petitioner Gopal is only a fragment. So far as the petitioner Gopal is concerned, no other point has been urged before me 5. As regards the petitioner Jankilal, Shri Garg submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner Jankilal were initiated under the Old Ceiling Law in pursuance of the direction given by the Revenue Appellate Authority by his order dated May 14, 1975 after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. 1973. After coming into force of the New Ceiling Law, the proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law could not have been initiated and all the proceedings against the petitioner Jankilal under the Old Ceiling Law are liable to he quashed. In his support, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in (1) Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1984 R.L.R. 610) which in its turn, he relied on the two decisions of this Court. (2) Pala Singh v. State of Rajasthan & others (1982 R.R.D 55) and (3) Sumitra Kaur v. Authorised Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Shri Ganganagar (1977 R.L.W. 423). 6. Mr. N. L. Pareek, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner Jankilal can not be allowed to raise this point for the first time before this Court as the said contention was not raised by him before any of the authorities. 6. Mr. N. L. Pareek, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner Jankilal can not be allowed to raise this point for the first time before this Court as the said contention was not raised by him before any of the authorities. Beside that, it was urged that the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority dated May 14, 1975 was not challenged by the petitioners whereby the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer and that has become final. 7. As regards, the submission of Mr. Pareek, that the order of remand of the Revenue Appellate Authority has become final suffice it to say that the petitioner Jankilal was not a party to the proceedings at the time when the order of remand was passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. He was called upon to submitted the Sub-Divisional Officer in pursuance of the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Even the party to the order of remand is entitled to agitate the matter before the higher forum is a remedy against the final order, that may be passed in the proceedings. To the order of remand, finality is attached. 8. So far as the other submission is concerned, it is true that the contention, which has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner Jankilal in this Court, has not been advanced by him before the authorities below, but this Court on that basis, can not ignore the contention. as the contention is in relation to the nature of the proceedings which goes to the root to the matter, when the proceedings are void as they can not be intiated under the Old Ceiling Law after coming into force the new Ceiling Law, when the entire proceedings are illegal, void and without jurisdiction then such a contention in my opinion, can be raised before this Court for the first time. 9. As regards the merits of the contention, it is enough to state that the contention is not devoid of substance. It has support in law. In Prithvisingh's case (supra). it has been held that after the old Act having been repealed by section 40 of the Act. Notices under the Act after repeal is patently illegal as cannot be substained. In Pala Singh's case (supra) it has been held the notice was issued under the provisions of the repealed law. It has support in law. In Prithvisingh's case (supra). it has been held that after the old Act having been repealed by section 40 of the Act. Notices under the Act after repeal is patently illegal as cannot be substained. In Pala Singh's case (supra) it has been held the notice was issued under the provisions of the repealed law. the notice be quashed beingex facie invalid, after refering Sumitra Kaur's case (supra). learned the Chief Justice Shri P.K. Banerjee in Prithvisingh's case observed as under:-(But see 1986 RLR 32-Editors) 10. Mr. Pareek submitted that it was an obligatory duty of the petitioner Janki Lal to have submitted his declaration in respect of his holdings. He failed to discharge the obligation as he was holding the land, he excess of ceiling limit under the Old Ceiling Law. Over the excess land. he is a trespasser. Such a petitioner who has acted in breech of law and one who is trespasser over the excess land should not be granted any relief by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdication. On the face of it, the argument is attractive and the petitioners Jankilal on that basis can be refused the relief as prayed for. However, even if the petitioner, Jankilal is a trespasser over the excess land, still he has to be dealt with in accordance with law. His excess land is to be determined in accordance with law and after such determination. he can be asked to surrender his land or he can putout from the possession of the excess land that too in accordance with law. When the Ceiling Authorities below have to follow a particular procedure to dispossess the land-holder or tenant holding the land in excess of the limit of Ceiling area, then without following the procedure, the person can not be deprived of the land in excess of the ceiling limit even though by the legal fiction, he maybe a trespasser in respect of the excess land. In the above view of the matter, the proceedings for determination of the ceiling area of the petitioner Jankilal are liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition of Gopal is dismissed However, the petition of Jankilal is allowed. The Ceiling proceedings against him under the Old Ceiling Law are quashed. In the above view of the matter, the proceedings for determination of the ceiling area of the petitioner Jankilal are liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition of Gopal is dismissed However, the petition of Jankilal is allowed. The Ceiling proceedings against him under the Old Ceiling Law are quashed. However, it would be open to the competent authority to determine the Celling area of the petitioners Jankilal in accordance with law. 12. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition Partly Accepted. *******