Chandan Singh v. Board of Revenue — 1997 DIGILAW 634 (RAJ)

Honble JAIN, J. – By this writ petition filed u/s. Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure 3) dated 29.9.1989 passed by the learned Board of Revenue dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and maintaining the impugned order (Annexure 2) dated 29.7.1985passed by the learned Collector, Jalore reopening the ceiling matter of the petitioner u/s. 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short `the Act). (2). The case of the petitioner is that his father was the original holder of the land in question. He died in the year 1965 leaving behind his wife Smt. Mor Kanwar, his son petitioner Chandansingh and his daughter Dariyav Kanwar, who was unma- rried at that time. After the death of the petitioners father Kansingh, his above legal representatives succeeded to the above land in accordance with the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1956. (3). It is alleged that a Ceiling Case No. 78 of 1975 was initiated against the petitioner regarding the whole of land in question by the Authorised Officer (Sub- Divisional Officer), Jalore and those proceedings were decided vide Judgment Annexure 1 dated 30.9.1975. It is relevant to mention here that those proceedings were decided without any notice to the mother and sister of the petitioner viz., Smt. Mor Kanwar and Dariyav Kanwar respectively. (4). It is further alleged that after the above order Annexure 1 dated 30.9.1975, as per the directions allegedly issued by the State Govt., the District Collector, Jalore reopened the ceiling matter and decided the same afresh vide his Judgment Annexure 2 dated 20.7.1985. Against that Judgment Annexure 2, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned Board of Revenue vide its Judgment Annexure 3 dated 29.9.1989 allowed the appeal in part and ordered that instead of 84.60 acres of land, only 64.60 acres of land be acquired. (5). Being dissatisfied with the impugned order Annexure 3 dated 29.9.1989 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. (6). I have heard M/s K.C. Samdariya and Arvind Samdariya, the learned coun- sel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Bohara, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (7). (6). I have heard M/s K.C. Samdariya and Arvind Samdariya, the learned coun- sel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Bohara, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. (7). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the re-opening of the above matter u/S. 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short `the Act). He has submitted that no such order was passed by the State Govt. to reopen the ceiling matter of the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned Judgment Annexure 2 of the learned District Collector, it appears that the State Govt. directed the District Collector to make an enquiry u/S. 15(2) of the Act on four points mentioned in the judgment. He has fur- ther submitted that the State Govt. cannot make an order for an enquiry for re-opening the ceiling matter of the petitioner on the ground that impugned order Annexure 1 dated 30.9.1975 passed by the learned Authorised Officer was prejudicial to the interest of the State Govt. and the provisions of Sec .15(2) of the Act envisages an order for reopening the order earlier passed in the ceiling matter and it pre-supposes that before exercising the above power, the State Govt. must have made necessary enquiry for exercising that power. (8). According to the learned counsel, nothing has been brought on record which shows that the State Govt. passed any order u/S.15(2) of the Act for reopening the matter. The order making an enquiry for reopening the matter u/S.15(2) of the Act will not amount to re-opening the old ceiling matter. (9). It has been next contended by the learned counsel that if the District Collector, pursuant to the directions of the State Govt., made an enquiry and found a prima facie case for exercising the option to reopen the matter u/S. 15(2) of the Act, he cannot do the same suo motu because the provisions of Sec. 15(2) of the Act only authorises the State Govt. to exercise such powers. The State Govt. has not delegated its powers to the District Collector and hence, the whole exercise purported to have been made under the provisions of Sec. 15(2) of the Act was futile and in blatant contravention of the provisions of Sec. 15(2) of the Act. (10). to exercise such powers. The State Govt. has not delegated its powers to the District Collector and hence, the whole exercise purported to have been made under the provisions of Sec. 15(2) of the Act was futile and in blatant contravention of the provisions of Sec. 15(2) of the Act. (10). It has also been contended by the learned counsel that even if it is assu- med that the District Collector could exercise the powers conferred by Sec. 15(2) of the Act, it was exercised beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by the second proviso to Sec. 15(1) of the Act. In the instant case, notice u/S. 15(2) of the Act was issued for the first time by the District Collector, Jalore to the petitioner on 4.10.1982 and hence, these proceedings are beyond the period of limitation. (11). The learned Deputy Government Advocate has supported the impugned order Annexure 2 passed by the learned District Collector as also the order Annexure 3 passed by the learned Board of Revenue on the ground that the State Government directed the District Collector to reopen the old ceiling case u/s. 15(2) of the Act. This fact is also borne out even from the perusal of the impugned judg- ment of the learned District Collector. (12). I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In this case, it is not in dispute that the Authorised Officer made the first assessment of the ceiling matter in respect of the father of the petitioner on 30.9.1975 and the first notice for reopening the matter u/S. 15(2) of the Act was issued by the District Collector, Jalore to the petitioner on 4.10.1982. Obviously, the reopening notice was issued to the petitioner beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under proviso to Sec. 15(2) of the Act. (13). Now, I come to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no order has been passed by the State Govt. to reopen the ceiling matter and hence, these proceedings stand vitiated. It is true that the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has not placed on record any order issued by the State Govt. purported to be u/s. 15(2) of the Act. We can only gather a mention of this fact in the impugned order Annexure 2 passed by the learned District Collector that the State Govt. It is true that the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate has not placed on record any order issued by the State Govt. purported to be u/s. 15(2) of the Act. We can only gather a mention of this fact in the impugned order Annexure 2 passed by the learned District Collector that the State Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 15(2) of the Act issued certain directions to the District Collector. Since the order of the State Govt. purported to be issued u/s. 15(2) of the Act has not been brought on record, this Court is deprived of the perusal of the original order passed by the State Govt. In the impugned order Annexure 2 passed by the District Collector, there is reference of four points, which were referred to the District Collector by the Govt. for initiation of proceedings u/S. 15(2) of the Act. These points clearly show that the directions of the Govt. were to hold an enquiry for ascertaining as to whether a case is made out for reopening the ceiling matter of the petitioner or not? In other words, there was no clear cut order for reopening the case u/S.15(2) of the Act. Even during the course of arguments, it was pointedly asked to the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate to make available the order, if any, passed u/S.15(2) of the Act by the State Govt. for reopening the matter but I regret that no such order has been brought on reocrd. I also record my disapproval of the way the Government has contested this writ petition. It was for the Government to prove the fact that it passed an order u/S.15(2) of the Act, in order to support the order Annexure 2 of the District Collector as also the Judgment Annexure 3 of the learned Board of Revenue. These orders emanated from the purported exercise of the powers conferred on the Govt. u/S.15(2) of the Act. Since no order is produced, the whole case of the State Govt. collapses and exactly this has happened in this case. (14). As stated above, from the perusal of the impugned judgment Annexure 2 of the District Collector, Jalore, it appears that the Govt. u/S.15(2) of the Act. Since no order is produced, the whole case of the State Govt. collapses and exactly this has happened in this case. (14). As stated above, from the perusal of the impugned judgment Annexure 2 of the District Collector, Jalore, it appears that the Govt. only directed the District Collector to conduct an enquiry to enable it to take action u/s. 15(2) of the Act and under the above directions issued by the Govt., the District Collector could only conduct an enquiry on the points specified by the Govt. and it was for the Govern- ment to pass an appropriate order u/s. 15(2) of the Act, if it desired to reopen the old ceiling matter of the petitioner. (15). In this view of the matter, the impugned order Annexure 2 dated 29.7.1985 passed by the District Collector, Jalore and impugned Judgment Annexure 3 dated 29.9.1989 of the learned Board of Revenue are not sustainable and they deserve to be set aside and quashed. For the above reasons, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order Annexure 2 dated 29.7.1985 passed by the District Collector, Jalore and the impugned Judgment Annexure 3 dated 29.9.1989 of the learned Board of Revenue.