JUDGMENT 1. - These three petitions raised a common question of law and hence are being decided by this common order. 2. Proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which came into force on 1.4.63 and under this Act, a land holder holding land in excess of ceiling area prescribed under Chapter was required to file a written-statement of his holding before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner filed his statement before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota. By his order dated 12th April, 1975 (in writ petition No. 1906/81), it was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer that the petitioner holds 8.88 standard acres of land as surplus, he accordingly ordered for filing of option of lands to be retained by the surplus holder. 3. On 7th February, 1980, a notice was perpetuated to be issued under the provisions of New Ceiling Act i.e. the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 which came into effect from 1.1.73 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act should not be suo-moto revised. The power of suo-moto revision is vested in the State Government under section 15-2 of the New Ceiling Act. 4. As a little variation on facts that is the extent of surplus land and date of issue of notice under section 15-2 of the New Ceiling Act, the facts of all the three petitions are similar. 5. The question which arises for decision in these cases is:- "What is the period of limitation applicable to the proceedings under section 15 of the New Ceiling Act and whether the proceedings commenced in each of the petitions were within limitation." 6. That under section 15 as it stood before the amendment of 1979 vide Act No. 6 of 79, the limitation prescribed there-under was mentioned in the proviso to section 15-1 was 5 years from the date of final order sought to be reopened or after 30th June, 1979 whichever is later the power of suo moto revision in relation to cases arising out of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was 7 years of date of final order sought to be reopened or after expiry of 30th June, 1979 whichever is later. Thus, according to this provisions of suo-moto revision or reopening could not be taken by the Government within 7 years from the date of the final order i.e. 7 years from 12th April, 1975 and probably, the notice of 7th Feb. 1980 was issued on the assumption of this position of law.Factually, this presumption is incorrect. 7. By an Act No. 6 of 79 provisions of Section 15 were substituted and the limitation was prescribed in relation to Rajasthan Tenancy Act cases to be 6 years of the commencement of this Act. The crucial question which arises for decision in these cases is, therefore, the meaning of words in the amending Act "commencement of this Act." 8. It would be seen that if the word "commencement of this Act" are read to mean commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the period of limitation expires in 6 years from 66 i.e. in 1973. Obviously it cannot be so read in the present case as the provisions of Section 15 appear in the New Ceiling Act i.e. Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 and the words "commencement of this Act" should therefore mean commencement of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Ad, 1973.However, the contention of the State is that the words "commencement of this Act" referred to commencement of the Amending Act of 79 and so calculated the revision is obviously within time. 9. This submission is ill-founded and unsustainable in law. A perusal of the Amending Act will show that the amendments were made with retrospective effect and it was provided that the provisions shall be deemed to have been incorporated in the Act from the date of commencement of the Amending Act, therefore, the amendment 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 will have to be read as amended, as the amendment is deemed to have been always made. The established cannons interpretation of statute require that plain meaning should be given to the words and phrases occurring in statute and consequently the words 'within 6 years of the commencement of this Act' must necessarily mean commencement of the Ceiling 'Act 1973 and not the Amending Act so considered. The notice issued on 7th Feb. 1980 is obviously beyond 6 years. The notice issued on 7th Feb. 1980 is obviously beyond 6 years. The period of 6 years has been expired on 1.1.79, the State Government therefore, had no power or jurisdiction under section 15 of the Ceiling Act to direct reopening of the cases of the petitioners. In these three petitions, the notices and proceedings in pursuance thereto are thus illegal and void for total lack of jurisdiction, the same are, therefore, quashed and set aside. The orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officers are thereby restored and maintained. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. *******