JUDGMENT 1. - Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the convenient disposal of these writ petition the facts given in the case of Kotu Ram v. State of Rajasthan and another (S.C. Civil Writ Petition No. 1024/1986) are taken into consideration. 3. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notice dated 30.5.1979 (Anx. 2) issued by the S.D.O. in proceedings No. 31/79 may be quashed. 4. The petitioner is a resident of Chak No. 53 G.G. Tehsil Sri Karanpur, district Sriganganagar situated within the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner is a agriculturist by profession and is holding a land in this village. The petitioner was allotted land by the Rehabilation Department, Government of India and the petitioner was holding the land less than the ceiling area applicable to him in Chak 53 G.G. Tehsil Srikaranpur. It is alleged that no proceedings under the provisions contained in Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were initiated against the petitioner i.e. under the Old Ceiling Law. Thereafter on coming into force of the new ceiling law i.e. the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the pursuance of that it was found that the petitioner does not hold the land excess than the ceiling and accordingly the ceiling proceedings were dropped by the order dated 14.11.1975 (Anx. 1). Then again on 30.5.1979 the SDO, Srikaranpur issued a notice under Chapter III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 i.e. under the old ceiling law to the petitioner to submit his return with regard to the land under the old ceiling law. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that once under the new ceiling law the proceedings has been completed and the petitioner is found to be not possessing the land more than the ceiling area and when the old ceiling law having been repealed by the new ceiling law in terms of the Section 40 of the Act of 1973, now the notice under the old ceiling law cannot be given. In substance, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice has been issued under the old ceiling law which has been repealed by the new ceiling law, 1973. 6. In substance, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice has been issued under the old ceiling law which has been repealed by the new ceiling law, 1973. 6. No return has been filed by the respondents. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears, to be justified that when the Act of 1973 has come into force and by virtue of Section 40 the old ceiling law stood repealed except to the limited extent i.e. as mentioned in the land proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 and in sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the Act rest of the provisions stood repealed as such the notice Anx. 2 under the repealed law has been given which is without jurisdiction. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision of this Court given in the case of Pala Singh v. State of Raj. & Ors. reported in WLN (UC) 1981, 273, (in identical situation) whereby it has been observed by the Acting Chief Justice D.P. Gupta as he then was that "as the notice is invalid on account of the fact that it was issued under the provisions of a repealed law and further as the writ petition has been entertained by this Court, it would not be proper to dismiss the writ petition at this stage, merely on the ground that the objection about the validity of the notice should have been raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The notice Anx. 2 ex-facie is invalid and deserves to be dismissed." Almost the identical situation is here. 7. Therefore, in view of the fact that the notice has been issued under the repealed law and the notice Anx. 2 dated 30.5.1979 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 8. In the result, both the writ petitions are-allowed and the notice is quashed.Petition allowed. *******