Honble SHETHNA, J. – A short but interesting question of law arise in this petition, i.e. ``Whether the order passed by authorised officer of preparing draft statement u/s. 12(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act 1973 (for short the New Ceiling Act) is an interim order or a final order? ``Whether interim orders can be reopened by the State Government in exercise ofits powers u/s. 15 of the New Ceiling Act? (2). The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Old Ceiling Act were dropped on 22.1.73 by the S.D.O. Bali. Thereafter on coming into force the New Ceiling Act the petitioner filed his declaration on 30.4.73 which was registered before the S.D.O. cum-Athorised Officer, Bali, who by his order dt. 21.1.75 (Anne-xure-2) ordered that the draft statement be issued u/s. 12(1) of the New Ceiling Act. Pursuance to that order, draft statement was prepared and published on 30.1.75 (Annexure 3). Therefore, the petitioner withdrew his objections and not only that he surrendered his surplus land to the State Government on 20.9.75. Thereafter, the authorised officer prepared and published final statement u/s 13 of the New CeilingAct. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 26.6.96 (Annexure-8) against the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the case should not be reopened by the State Government in exercise of its powers u/s. 15 of the New Ceiling Act as they found that the order passed by the S.D.O. on 21.1.75 (Annexure-2) was not in accordance with law. Reply to the notice was given on 22.12.79 (Annexure-9). There-after the State Government by an order dt. 20.10.81 (Annexure -17) decided to reopen the case u/s 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act against the order dt. 21.1.75 passed by the S.D.O. Surprisingly the same was communicated to the petitioner only in 1987 by notice dt. 6.7.87 and the petitioner was called upon to remain present on 12.8.87 before the Additional Collector, Pali. The petitioner has challenged the im-pugned order at Annexure-17 before this Court by way of this writ petition on several grounds raised in the petition. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raj Purohit vehemently submitted that the order at Annexure-2 passed by S.D.O. was an interim order and not a final order, therefore, State Government had no jurisdiction to reopen the case U/s. 15(1)of the New Ceiling Act. (3). Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Raj Purohit vehemently submitted that the order at Annexure-2 passed by S.D.O. was an interim order and not a final order, therefore, State Government had no jurisdiction to reopen the case U/s. 15(1)of the New Ceiling Act. He submitted that the case can be reopened u/s. 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act where the final orders have been passed and not against an interim order. He submitted that the order dt. 21.1.75 was an interim order passed u/s. 12 (1) of the New Ceiling Act whereas the final order was passed by the authority u/s. 13 of the New Ceiling Act later on i.e. on 20.9.75. Relying upon Section23 of the New Ceiling Act it was submitted that the appeal can lie by any person or State Government aggrieved by any decision or order of the authorised officer passed u/s. 12(3) or 19 and 21 of the New Ceiling Act. He submitted that the appeals can be filed only against the final orders and not against the interim orders. He submitted that the order at (Annexure-2) was an interim order u/s. 12(1) of the Actagainst which no appeal was maintainable. Therefore, he submitted that State Government cannot reopen the case in exercise of powers u/s. 15 of the New Ceiling Act. There is a lot of substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the facts of the case it is clear that earlier order dt. 21.1.75 (Annexure -2) was passed u/s. 12(1) of the Act of preparing draft statementwas an interim order. The final order can be passed only u/s. 13 of the New Ceiling Act after considering the objections raised by the party concerned. In the instant case the final order of preparing and publishing the draft statement was passed on 23.9.75 (Annexure -4) u/s. 13 of the New Ceiling Act. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-17 passed by the State Government to reopen the case against an interim order dt. 21.1.75 (Annexure-2) was illegal because the said interim order had merged into the final order which was passed lateron i.e. on 23.9.75. In view of the above discussion this petition is allowed. It is held that the State Government cannot reopen the case against an interim order in exercise of its powers u/s. 15 of the New Ceiling Act. 21.1.75 (Annexure-2) was illegal because the said interim order had merged into the final order which was passed lateron i.e. on 23.9.75. In view of the above discussion this petition is allowed. It is held that the State Government cannot reopen the case against an interim order in exercise of its powers u/s. 15 of the New Ceiling Act. The impugned order at Annexure-17 is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.