Judgment ( 1 ) - We have heard Mr. Mehriah, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the judgment dated 19/10/1967 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a twofold contention. The first is that the Board of Revenue did not go into the question as to whether the agricultural lands for which ceiling proceedings were initiated were ancestral property or not and without going into this question dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and his two sons viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop. The second contention is that once the ceiling case is decided under chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the old Ceiling-Law) against the assessee and has also been decided under the provisions of Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Ceiling Law) they cannot be reopened under subsection (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law. ( 2 ) WE shall presently show that none of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel has force, but before we will state the facts in brief. ( 3 ) PROCEEDINGS under Old Ceiling Law and the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on lands) Government Rules 1963 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules), were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota against the petitioner for the acquisition of the surplus lands possessed by him. Those ceiling proceedings were dropped under order dated 29-4-75 in ceiling case No. 2182/75. It appears that the ceiling proceedings under the new Ceiling Law were also decided under order dated November 20, 75 by the learned Authorised Officer Ceiling, Kota. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law, under its order dated 19/12/1980, after notice to the petitioner on the grounds contained, ordered the reopening of the ceiling case of the petitioner decided under the Old Ceiling Law. Thereafter, before the Additional Collector Ceiling, Kota a plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the agricultural lands in dispute were ancestral, and therefore, his two sons viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop each was entitled to a separate unit. The Additional Collector Ceiling, Kota under its order dated 22/10/1983 determined the ceiling area and the aforesaid arguments did not prevail with him. The learned Addl. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop each was entitled to a separate unit. The Additional Collector Ceiling, Kota under its order dated 22/10/1983 determined the ceiling area and the aforesaid arguments did not prevail with him. The learned Addl. Collector took the entire area situated within chambal command area. Against the aforesaid order two appeals were filed one by the petitioner it was bearing No. 311 /83 Ceiling/kota and other by his two sons Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop which was bearing Appeal No. 326 / 83 / Ceiling/kota. The learned Member of Board of Revenue allowed the appeal No. 311 / 83 / Ceiling/kota by the petitioner and set aside the impugned order of the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota and sent the case back to him with the direction to calculate the standard acres according to entries in annual register as on 1/04/1966. The appeal filed by Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop was dismissed. ( 4 ) FIRST contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Member of Board of Revenue did not consider the first objection raised by the petitioner that the lands were ancestral and as such the two sons of the petitioner viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop were entitled to a separate unit in lieu of their share of the disputed lands. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Revenue Board, wherein it appears that the aforesaid submissions was not considered. He has also referred to the order of the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota wherein the Additional Collector has said that the question as to whether the agricultural lands were ancestral or not is not of importance because on the appointed day no member in the family of the petitioner has been found to be dependent, The learned counsel on being asked by us to show that on 1-4-66 the agricultural lands in dispute were ancestral lands of the petitioner failed to show any documentary evidence. He also failed to show that any Jama Bandi (record of rights) was filed in the Courts below and were ignored. We may further state that it is well known that when a khatedar dies and his name is recorded on the Jama Bandi his heirs get mutation attested in their name and their name appear in the mutation sheet, even that has not been filed. We may further state that it is well known that when a khatedar dies and his name is recorded on the Jama Bandi his heirs get mutation attested in their name and their name appear in the mutation sheet, even that has not been filed. Therefore, there is no prima facie documentary evidence to show, nor any such documentary evidence appears to have been filed before Additional Collector (Ceiling), Kota, that the lands in dispute were ancestral on the appointed day i. e. 1-4-1966. That apart the question whether the lands were ancestral or not is primarily a question of fact and finding of the Court below that the petitioner failed to prove that they were ancestral cannot be said to be perverse. We are of the opinion that the contention of Shri Mehrish that the agricultural land were ancestral appears to have been raised just for the sake of arguments otherwise there is no prima facie satisfaction in respect of the aforesaid contention. ( 5 ) COMING to the next contention of Mr. Mehrish, that the case having been decided under the Old Ceiling Law as well as the New Ceiling Law it could not be reopened under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law. Mr. Mehrish has contended that this Court in cases has taken a view that the Old Ceiling Law as well as the New Ceiling Law, then it could not be reopened under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law. He has made a reference to a number of decisions of this Court. The first is S. B. C. W. P. No. 363 / 81 (Smt. Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan), 1985 RRD 98 in the aforesaid order the Honble Chief Justice of this Court, it appears took a view that if the Ceiling proceedings, initiated and culminated in favour of the petitioner under the old Ceiling Law and also the new Ceiling Law, it is not open to the respondent to proceed against under the old Ceiling Law. The Honble Chief Justice said that both the old Ceiling Law and New Ceiling Law cannot occupy the same field or in the same subject matter. " A look at the aforesaid judgment in Smt. Pari Devi will show that the various provisions of the old Law and as well as of the new law were not considered. The Honble Chief Justice said that both the old Ceiling Law and New Ceiling Law cannot occupy the same field or in the same subject matter. " A look at the aforesaid judgment in Smt. Pari Devi will show that the various provisions of the old Law and as well as of the new law were not considered. The aforesaid case of Smt. Pari Devi was cited in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Dakhan (D. B. C. Spl. Appeal No. 228/84), decided on 20-7-1984 at Jodhpur. The matter was considered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Singh, 1986 RLR 32 and in the case of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur v. State of Raj. , 1987 RLR (1) 544. It may also be stated that a Special Leave Petition was filed against the decision in the case of Smt. Kakhan by the State of Rajasthan in the Supreme Court and it did not allow it. We may observe at this stage that the decision not to grant S. L. P. does not decide the dispute involved, and it can only be laid that the Supreme Court in that case did not consider it proper to grant S. L. P. Be that as it may there is no judgment of the Supreme Court on the question involved before us, and as stated earlier there are decisions of this Court. ( 6 ) MR. Mehrish learned counsel for the petitioner has made a reference to the aforesaid judgments of two different Benches of this Court. We will refer to each of the case at a last stage of this order, but before we do so, we will make a reference to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the new Ceiling Law as under: -"15. We will refer to each of the case at a last stage of this order, but before we do so, we will make a reference to the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the new Ceiling Law as under: -"15. Power to reopen cases: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under this Act is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be reopened it may, at any time within three years of the date of such final order or within two years of the commencement of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975: whichever is later, direct any officer subordinate to it to reopen such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) With prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) if the State Government after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by Section 40, is in contravention of such repealed provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be reopened it may at any time within five years of the commencement of this Act, direct and any officer subordinate to it to reopen such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions. " ( 7 ) A bare reading of the aforesaid extracted provisions will be that such Sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 have been made to meet two different situations. " ( 7 ) A bare reading of the aforesaid extracted provisions will be that such Sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 have been made to meet two different situations. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 will be attracted in case, the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under the new ceiling law is in contravention of the provisions of that Act and is prejudicial to the State Government or on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has come to its notice, is required to be reopened. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 is applicable if the State Government is satisfied that final orders passed in any matter arising under the old ceiling law is in contravention of that law and is prejudicial to the State Government, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to reopen such decided case and to decide it afresh in accordance with the old ceiling law. This power can be exercised after giving a show cause notice to the person concerned. Again a limitation has been prescribed for the exercise of powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the new ceiling law. Under sub-section (1) a ceiling case decided under the New Ceiling Law can be reopened whereas under sub-section (2) of Section 15 the ceiling case decided under the old Ceiling Law can be reopened. The power to reopen the cases under either of those provisions can only be exercised once. There can be no dispute that while deciding the ceiling area under Section 4 (1) of new ceiling law, by virtue of the provisions contained in proviso 2 to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, if exceeds the ceiling area applicable under the old ceiling law, then it shall be the same, as applicable under that law. A bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act will show that power can be exercised if the State Government is satisfied that any final order passed under the old ceiling law is in contravention of the provisions that law and is prejudicial to the State Government. A bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act will show that power can be exercised if the State Government is satisfied that any final order passed under the old ceiling law is in contravention of the provisions that law and is prejudicial to the State Government. Therefore, as stated earlier both the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the new Ceiling Law have been made to meet two different fact situations, and therefore, we are of the opinion that despite the fact that the ceiling area has been determined under the old ceiling law as well as the new Ceiling Law the State Government can order to reopening also under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law. No doubt subject to other condition and whether the prescribed period of limitation as contained therein. ( 8 ) IN the case of State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Singh, 1986 RLR 32 it appears to us that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 were not considered in detail and the question to which the Court confined itself was whether the proceedings pending under the old ceiling law should be quashed or should be allowed to be continued under the new Ceiling Law. The Court while allowing the Special Appeals and setting aside the order of the learned single Judge without setting aside the entire proceedings directed that the same will be continued under the new ceiling law. ( 9 ) THE facts in the case of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan (supra) were that the proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Old Ceiling Law had been dropped, and under the New Ceiling Law were also decided. Appeal was filed against the latter decision. The Additional Collector under its order remanded the case to Assistant Collector, Shahbad, for deciding the matter afresh under New Ceiling Law. But in the meantime the Deputy Revenue Secretary under its order dated 16-6-78, 5-7-78 and 10-7-78, had reopened the proceedings under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law. Appeal was filed against the latter decision. The Additional Collector under its order remanded the case to Assistant Collector, Shahbad, for deciding the matter afresh under New Ceiling Law. But in the meantime the Deputy Revenue Secretary under its order dated 16-6-78, 5-7-78 and 10-7-78, had reopened the proceedings under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law. A controversy was raised before this Court that the proceedings cannot be continued simultaneously under the Old Ceiling Law as well as the New Ceiling Law and that when the proceedings initiated by the Assistant Collector determined on 28-2-1976 are still pending before him in view of the remand order lastly of the Addl. Collector, Kota, the proceedings could not have been reopened under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law. Ultimately, this Court, quashed the order of the Deputy Revenue Secretary by which the case decided under the Old Ceiling Law was reopened. These orders were quashed by this Court merely on the ground that the matter is pending under New Ceiling Law and in those proceedings while applying proviso 2 to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the New Ceiling Law the Authorised Officer is competent to determine the ceiling area also under Old Ceiling Law. It will, therefore, appear that the question which is in the present case that if proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law as well as the New Ceiling Law had been decided whether still, the case decided under the Old Ceiling Law can be reopened under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law was not involved either in that case or in any other aforesaid case. The case for consideration is Chhitar Mal v. State. The facts in that case were also that in the ceiling proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law the Sub-Divisional Officer Kota, vide order dated 31-3-1975 dropped them, the ceiling proceedings under the New Ceiling Law were decided on 17-4-1976 and it was held by the Authorised Officer, Kota that no surplus land was found in the possession of the assessee. The Ceiling matter under the Old Ceiling Law was reopened by the State Government under Section 15 (2) of the Act. The Ceiling matter under the Old Ceiling Law was reopened by the State Government under Section 15 (2) of the Act. This Court after dealing with the earlier cases agreed to some limited extent with the case of Pari Devi v. State (supra) in which the Honble Chief Justice Shri P. K. Banerjee, had set aside all the orders, including the orders of the Board of Revenue made under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Act for reopening of an order passed under the Old Ceiling Law. The Court observed in Chittar Mals case (supra) that we hasten to clarify and observe that if a case under the new ceiling law is decided without considering the implications of second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the New Ceiling Law, then the State Government will be competent to reopen the case decided under the Old Ceiling Law. If a case is reopened under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law then the person authorised to decide the case afresh has to apply the provisions contained in the Old Ceiling Law. It also observed that in a case pending under New Ceiling Law the Old Ceiling Law would also be applied with the aid of second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the New Ceiling Law and if the case is decided in the light of the provisions contained therein then, it will be unjust to exercise the powers under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law and, in that situation the State Government has to take recourse against the order passed by the Authorised Officer under the New Ceiling Law and if no action is taken against such an order by the State Government then it would be assumed that though the matter was considered under both the Old and New Ceiling Law but still the State Government did not choose to challenge orders passed under the New Ceiling Law by preferring any appeal, in that situation, the order under New Ceiling Law would become final as against the State, and the State Government would have no power to exercise the powers under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law. With due respect to the Court which decided the case we are of the opinion that the construction of a provision does not depend on different fact situations and while construing the provisions the fact whether the case of the petitioner under the New Ceiling Law was or was not considered under the Old Ceiling Law by virtue of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4, will not make any difference. In our opinion it is not permissible in law to interpret a section depending on different fact situation. We have already said earlier that both sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 15 of the Act have been made to meet two different situations. Sub-section (1) will apply to a case decided under New Ceiling Law whereas the sub-section (2) of Section 15 will apply to a case which has been decided under Old Ceiling Law. Therefore, even if a case under the Old Ceiling Law as well as New Ceiling Law has been decided and no appeal or revision is pending, it will be open for the State Government to reopen a case decided under Old Ceiling Law by virtue of powers vested under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. We may state that the purpose of the ceiling laws is to determine the ceiling area and to take excess land. If within the period prescribed the State Government for the reasons contained in that sub-sections comes to the conclusion that the case decided under the Old Ceiling Law is in contravention of the provisions of that Act or any new evidence has been discovered then for reasons to be stated, it can reopen the case so decided. ( 10 ) IN our opinion the determination of the ceiling area and decision of the case both under the Old Ceiling Law as well as under the New Ceiling Law does not debar the State Government from reopening the case under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law. ( 11 ) WE find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed.