JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ quashing and felting aside (he order dated 25th September, 1975, passed by the Sub divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake; order dated 7th February, 1976, passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur and the order dated 10th January, 1977, passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as the Old Ceiling Law)- In the proceedings, it was held by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake by his order dated 6th December, 1971 that transfer of 860 bighas 4 biswas of land was valid and permissible and, for the remaining land there were three equal shares of the petitioner, his sister Jayendra Kumari and his grand-mother Smt. Resal Kanwar. The remaining land is equivalent to 120 standard acres of gland, therefore, leaving 90 standard acres in three shares, 30 standard acres of land be acquired. The petitioner has further stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer acting as Authorised Officer in proceedings under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Ceiling Law) passed an order dated 25th September, 1975 whereby he held that the petitioner is holding 1891/2 standard acres of land, out of which 54 acres be left with the petitioner and 135.6 acres of land he declared as being in excees of the ceiling limit and be ordered to be acquired. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Addl. Collector, which was dismissed on 7th February, 1976. Again aggrieved by the order of the Addl. Collector, Jaipur, the petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10th January. 1977. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Shri B.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the aforesaid orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Addl. Collector, Jaipur, the petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10th January. 1977. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Shri B.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the aforesaid orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Addl. Collector & the Board of Revenue mainly on the ground that when the Sub-divisional Officer Sambhar Lake in his order dated 6th December, 1971 had accepted the equal shares of the petitioner, his sister Jyendra Kumari and his grandmother Smt. Rasal Kanwar, tfeen the said finding could not have been ignored or re-opened or set aside by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake while proceeding under the New Ceiling Law. In short the contention of Shri Sharma is that since in the proceedings under the Old and New Ceiling Law the parties were the same as also the authority deciding the matter, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 6th December, 1971 had the effect of res judicata and the order dated 6th December, 1971, could not have been set aside by the subsequent order dated 25th September, 1975. It was also contended by Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 6tb Dec, 1971 was passed on the basis a decree passed by the Court of law established under the revenue laws of the land and as such it was beyond the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer to nullify the effect of the decree by re-opening the order dated 6th December, 1971 by his order dated 25th Feb. 1975. Another submission of Shri Sharma is that the SDO under the New Ceiling Law was not competent to re open the case decided under the Old Ceiling Law while resorting to proceed under the provisions of the New Ceiling Law as a case decided under the Old Ceiling Law could be re-opened by the order of the Government passed under Section 12(2) of the New Ceiling Law. Shri Sharma also submitted that Jyendra Kutnari and Smt. Rasal Kanwar have shares in the land recorded in the petitioners name and their shares should have been excluded while computing the ceiling art a applicable to the petitioner. 4. Shri N.L. Pareek, learned Addl. Shri Sharma also submitted that Jyendra Kutnari and Smt. Rasal Kanwar have shares in the land recorded in the petitioners name and their shares should have been excluded while computing the ceiling art a applicable to the petitioner. 4. Shri N.L. Pareek, learned Addl. Government Advocate, while replying to the submissions made by Shri B L. Sharma, submitted that the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer is perfectly justified and no interference is called for by this Court. On facts, Shri Pareek submitted that the lands which stood in the name of the petitioner on the crucial day i.e. 26th September 1970 and which was verified by the Tehsildar to be in the Khata of the petitioner wire taken in to consideration by the revenue authorities while considering the case of the petitioner. The petitioner as Khatedar did not point out the particulars of transfers made prior to 26th September, 1970 which affected his holding on 26th September, 1970 and, thus the objection raised by the petitioner was rightly rejected. Shri Pareek further pointed out that after 26th September, 1970, the land mesuring 381/4 acres was transferred through registered sale-deed and the transferees were found in possession of the land were rightly excluded from the petitioners holding along with the land measuring 117⅘ bighas acquired under the old ceiling law. Shri Pareek also submitted that the SDO, Sambhar Lake vide his his order dated 6th December, 1971, rightly ignored the shares of the grandmother and sister Jyendra Kumari as the land stood in the name of the petitioner in the record of rights and he used to pay land revenue of it Shri Pareek pointed out that the decree passed by the Sub-divisional Officer on 1st December, 1971 was a consent decree and was passed after the appointed date and was an act to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Law. 5. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the respective submission made by the learned council for the parties. 6. 5. We have given out thoughtful consideration to the respective submission made by the learned council for the parties. 6. The main point which has been argued by Shri B.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in view of the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 6th December, 1971, which was passed under the provisions of the Old Ceiling Law, the Authorised Officer under the New Ceiling Law could not have proceeded with for acquiring any land under the provisions of the New Ceiling Law. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by Shri Sharma, it would be look at the statement of objects and reasons given for the enactment of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973. It is stated that the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 had imposed a ceiling of 30 standard acres on the holding of agricultural land in the Slate and, it is felt that still great disparity in the holding of agricultural land leading to the concentration of such land in the hands of few persons exists. It was also observed that the agricultural land available for cultivation in the State is limited. Thus, the Act was passed to reduce such disparity and to re-fix the ceiling area on agricultural holdings so that surplus agricultural land may be available for distribution to landless persona. From the statement of objects and reasons it is thus, clear that the New Ceiling Law was enacted as the purpose for which the Old Ceiling Law was passed was not capable of fulfilling the objects of the Ceiling Law. It is true that under the Old Ceiling Law containing in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Sub-Divisional Officer computed the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner and acquired only 30 standard acres of land leaving 90 standard acres in three shares. After the New Ceiling Law was made applicable proceedings were initiated under the New Ceiling Law by the Sub-Divisional Officer who passed the impugned order dated 25th September, 1975. Thus, the question raissd is, whether it was within the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate proceedings under the New Ceiling Law when he had already determined the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner under the old ceiling law and the order passed by him on 6th December, 1971 became final. Thus, the question raissd is, whether it was within the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate proceedings under the New Ceiling Law when he had already determined the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner under the old ceiling law and the order passed by him on 6th December, 1971 became final. Where, thus, required to consider whether in view of the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Old Ceiling Law, in his judgment dated 6th December, 1971 operates as res judicata and bars the proceedings to be initiated under the New Ceiling Law. 7. The object of the Ceiling Law is clear. It provides that if there is any land in excess of the ceiling area on the appointed date it ceases to belong to the owner. Section 4 of the New Ceiling Law provides fixation of ceiling on land holdings and Section 5 provides rules for computation of ceiling area. Section 11 of the New Ceiling Law makes it obligatory upon a person who holds land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him to furnishes a return. It also provides that in case any person holding land in excess of ceiling area fails to furnish return the Authorised Officer is empowered to issue notice requiring such person to furnish a return or additional particulars, as the case may be, within the time specified in the notice, or within such further time, not exceeding 30 days, as the Authorised Officer may in his discretion allow. Section 11(b) provides procedure for disposal of returns or (supplementary returns filed under Section 11(a). Section 12 lays down that after the receipt of the return the Authorised Officer is required to prepare a draft statement in respect of each person holding land in excess of the ceiling area and the draft statement is required to be served on the persons concerned, who are interested in the land to which such draft statement relates. The Authorised Officer is required to consider the objections filed with regard to the draft statement and the final statement is required to be published in the manner provided under Section 13. Thus, after coming into for the New Ceiling Law it is imperative on the part of the Authorised Officer to proceed to take appropriate measures against the persons holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. Thus, after coming into for the New Ceiling Law it is imperative on the part of the Authorised Officer to proceed to take appropriate measures against the persons holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. The Authorised Officer could not be precluded from taking proceedings against any person holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. In the instant case the Authorised Officer was of the opinion that the petitioner was holding landing land in excess of the ceiling laminated, therefore it was statutory duty of the Authorised Officer to have proceeded under Section 11 of the Act. The moment the Authorised Officer forms an opinion that the petitioner or his family of which he was the member was holding any land in excess of the ceiling area in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it was his duty to have proceeded under Section 11 of the Act. From the facts on record, it is clear that the petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and thus, the Authorised Officer was perfectly justified to take appropriate proceedings under Section 11 of the New Ceiling Law and there is no merit in the contention of Shri Sharma that fresh proceedings for computation of ceiling area under the New Ceiling Law is barred. In fact, looking to the object of the Act, it was imperative on the part of the petitioner himself to have surrendered the excess land as he cased to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area with effect from the appointed date. In Amarjeet Kaur and Ors. v. State and Ors. 1987 (1) RLR 544 , a Division Bench of this Court considered this aspect of the matter where the facts were that proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B (c)f the Raj Tenancy Act, 1955 and the proceedings were ultimately dropped by the order dated 14th January, 1971 by the SDO, Baran. Thereafter, the Asstt. Collector, Baran commenced-the proceedings afresh under the New Ceiling Law who decided the case by order dated 26th February, 1976, against which an appeal was preferred before the Addl. Collector, Kota who remanded the case to Asstt. Collector for determining the ceiling area afresh vide order dated 4th August, 1976. The aggrieved party again went in appeal against the fresh order before the Addl. Collector, Kota and the Addl. Collector decide the matter on 4th April. Collector, Kota who remanded the case to Asstt. Collector for determining the ceiling area afresh vide order dated 4th August, 1976. The aggrieved party again went in appeal against the fresh order before the Addl. Collector, Kota and the Addl. Collector decide the matter on 4th April. 1985 by remanding the case to the Asstt. Collector, Shahbad for deciding the matter afresh under the New Ceiling Law. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Secretary (Government) by order dated 5th Oct. 1978, reopened the proceedings under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Law. The effect of this order was that the proceedings were started afresh by the Addl. Collector, Kota under the Ceiling Law. It was, in these circumstances, held that since the proceedings were pending before the Asstt. Collector Shahbad, in pursuance of the remand order of the Asstt. Collector, Kota. dated 4th April, 1985, the same will continue and the Asstt. Collector would be competent to determine the ceiling area and, it was also held that the re-opening of the proceedings under the Old Act by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) was without jurisdiction. Thus, in Amarjeet Kaur's case, it was clearly held that even after the decision under the old ceiling law, proceedings under the New Ceiling Law could be commenced and pending proceedings under the New Ceiling Act, the proceedings could not have been re-opened even under the Old Act by resorting to the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act. 8. In State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. 1986 RLR 32 , a Division Bench of this Court held that if proceedings are pending under the Old Ceiling Law and not disposed of when New Ceiling Law came into force, then the proceedings must be disposed of in accordance with the Old Ceiling Law It was also held that if the proceedings were initiated and disposed of before the New Ceiling Law came into force, the State Government was entitled to re-open such case under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Law In Prithvi Singh's case it was also held that the State Government is entitled to get the ceiling area determined either under the old ceiling law or the New Ceiling Law whichever is beneficial to the State Government in view of second Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the New Ceiling law. In Amarjeet Kaur's case (Supra), it was further explained that in spite of the proceedings having been dropped under the Old Ceiling Law, fresh proceedings under the New Ceiling Law could be commenced, which view finds support from a Division Bench judgment in Mr. Sumitra Kaur v. A.O. Shri Ganganagar 1977 WLN 505 . 9. Thus we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the submissions made by Shri Sharma that the proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law which culminated in the judgment dated 6th December, 1971 of the Sub-Divisional Officer became final and therefore, proceedings for computation of ceiling area under the New Ceiling was were barred on the principle of res judicata. 10. Another submission of Shri Sharma is that shares of Jyendra Kumari and Smt. Rasal Kanwar should have been taken into account by the Authorised Officer. In this regard, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is justified. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is as follows: "It was argued that the Courts below had erred in excluding their shares. The land in dispute WBB recorded in the name of applicant's father. The father expired in 1956 and the land was recorded in the recorded in the name of the applicant and his mother. The applicant did not think of the sister and the aunt till 1-12-1971. The Courts below held the suit for partition was filed and allowed to be decreed because of the ceiling Act and was an attempt to defeat the provisions of the Act. The conclusion is justified in the circumstances of the case. When the land recorded in the name of the applicant the question of partition between him and his sister etc. could not arise because they do not have any share in the land recorded in the name of applicant. In view of the justification of the finding that the transaction is fictitious and calculated to defeated to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Law, the pleas is untenable. 11. In the premises aforesaid, there in no merit in the writ petition writ petition, thus, fails and is here by dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******