Honble SHARMA, J.—The case of petitioner under section 15(2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short New Ceiling Act) was admitted for reopening on April 3, 1980. Thereafter the order dated January 24, 1991. May 26, 1993 and October 13, 1993 were respectively passed by Deputy Secretary Revenue Ceiling Department Jaipur and Board of Revenue Ajmer. The petitioner in the instant writ petition seeks to quash the aforesaid orders. (2). Contextual fact depict that after chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (herein after to be referred as Old Ceiling Law) came into force with effect from December 15, 1963 every land holder who was in possession of land in excess of ceiling area had to file a statement. The petitioner who was holding khatedari land measuring 276 bighas 19 biswas in village Chanawata and Naharia filed declaration under rule 9 of the Old Ceiling Law before the Sub Divisional Officer Ramganj Mandi. The Sub Divisional Officer Ramganj Mandi vide judgment dated July 15,1975 held that since the petitioner was holding in his khatedari and possession 46.60 standards acres of land, he was entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land for a family of 5 members and 16.60 standard acres land was liable to be acquired. (3). Thereafter in view of Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act, which came into force with effect from January 1,1973, in the year 1979 the case of petitioner was reopened and the notice was issued on April 3, 1980 to petitioner requiring him to show cause on June 20, 1980 as to why the case decided on July 25, 1975 be not reopened. (4). The petitioner due to sickness could not contest the matter and in absence of petitioner the case was reopened and notice was issued to petitioner to which petitioner replied on January 21, 1991 and submitted that the proceedings were wholly time barred. He also averred that out of 136 bighas 5 biswas he had sold khasra No. 120 measuring 20 bighas 10 biswas through registered sale deed dated December 18,1963 to Nandlal and Ramchander. He also mentioned about other transfers. The Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota vide judgment dated January 24,1991 allowed the petitioner to retain 30 standard acres of land and 21.55 standard acres of land was declared as surplus. He also mentioned about other transfers. The Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota vide judgment dated January 24,1991 allowed the petitioner to retain 30 standard acres of land and 21.55 standard acres of land was declared as surplus. It was also ordered that the land which had been acquired earlier should be adjusted in the above surplus land. The appeal preferred against the order was dismissed vide judgment dated May 26, 1993 on the ground of devoid of substance and time barred. The review petition also came to be dismissed on October 13,1993. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under section 15(2) of New Ceiling Act the period of limitation has been kept as six years from the date of commencement of the New Ceiling Law. The case of the petitioner could be reopened only upto January 1, 1979 within six years from January 1, 1973 when the new Act came into force. The case of petitioner was already decided on July 25, 1975, as such the notice dated April 3, 1980 for reopening the case was beyond limitation. Reliance is placed on Dhanraj vs. State of Raj., 1995 RRD 115. (6). Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments. (7). I have reflected over the rival submissions. (8). The Division Bench of this Court in Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) indicated thus:— (Para 9) "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 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. 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." (9). The case of petitioner under section 15(2) of New Ceiling Act was indisputably reopened on April 3, 1980 which was beyond the period of limitation. Thus the proceedings under New Ceiling Act were exfacie illegal and deserve to be quashed. (10). For these reasons. I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated April 8, 1981, January 24,1991, May 26 1993 and October 13,1993. There shall be no order as to costs.