Honble JAIN, J.–By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order Ex.3 dated 29.10.1996 passed by the State Govt. in exercise of its powers conferred by S. 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short `the Act) whereby proceedings for determination of ceiling area were reopened against the petitioner under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (2). The brief facts of the case are that initially proceedings for determination of ceiling area were initiated against the petitioner under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act by the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Raisinghnagar, on enquiry,the Sub-Divisional-Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not possess the land in excess of the ceilings fixed under the provisions of the Act and those proceedings were dropped vide order Ex.1 dated 22.3.1971. (3). Thereafter, proceedings for determination of the ceiling area of the petitioner were again initiated by the Sub- Divisional-Officer under the provisions of the Act of 1973. The Authorised Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) decided the case vide his order Ex.2 dated 20.10.1975. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order Ex.2 dated 20.10.1975 before the District Collector, Sri Ganganagar, who dismissed the same. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 20.10.1975 before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer but that too met the same fate. (4). The petitioner has eventually filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1661 of 1976, which is pending before this Honble Court. That writ petition has been admitted by this Honble Court and even an interim order staying delivery of possession of land in dispute has been passed. (5). The State Government has reopened the proceedings under the provi- sions of the Old Ceiling law vide its order Ex. 3 dated 29.10.1976. It is alleged that the State Government is debarred from passing an order under S.15(2) of the Act after initiation of the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1973. Hence this writ petition. (6). I have heard Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.K. Vyas, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. (7). Mr. Hence this writ petition. (6). I have heard Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.K. Vyas, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. (7). Mr. Dalpat Raj Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the dictum laid down by this Court in Smt. Pari Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (1), has contended that the facts of this case are identical with the facts of Smt. Pari Devis case (supra) and in that case also, initially proceedings were initiated under the old ceiling law and were dropped in the year 1972. Subsequently, proceedings were again initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1973 in the year 1975 and were dropped in the year 1978. On those facts, it was held that when proceedings were dropped under the new law, it must be held that there was we excess land with the petitioner and it was not open to the Govt. to proceed again under old law. Thus, proceedings under S.15(2) of the Act were held to be without jurisdiction. (8). The learned Additional Govt. Advocate could not cite any other ruling containing a contrary view. I am also in total agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts of the present case are identical with the facts of Smt. Pari Devis case and thus, the decision in Smt. Pari Devis case would apply to the facts of this case. (9). In the instant case, initially proceedings under the old ceiling law were initiated but they were dropped on the ground that no excess land was found. Thereafter, proceedings under the new ceiling law were initiated and they were decided vide order Ex.2 dated 20.10.1975. Thereafter, the Govt. passed the impugned order Ex.3 dated 29.10.1976. Thus, relying on the view taken in Smt. Pari Devis case (supra), I hold that after initiating the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1973, the Govt. was not competent to reopen the proceedings under S.15(2) of the Act. The proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1973 could not reach to its logical decision inasmuch as the writ petition is still pending before this court against the order passed by the Board of Revenue. (10). was not competent to reopen the proceedings under S.15(2) of the Act. The proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1973 could not reach to its logical decision inasmuch as the writ petition is still pending before this court against the order passed by the Board of Revenue. (10). For the above reasons, I accept this writ petition, set aside the order Ex.3 dated 29.10.1976 passed by the State Government under S.15(2) of the Act of 1973 and quash the proceedings initiated in pursuance of that order. This order will not in any way affect the writ petition which is pending before this Court which amnated from the proceedings taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1973. (11). There will be no order as to costs.