Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2723 (RAJ)

Hari Ram v. The State of Rajasthan

2006-09-13

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2006
Judgment Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Challenge in this writ petition is to the Judgment s dated 04.08.1993 and 27.05.1996 of the Board of Revenue Ajmer. A prayer has also been made to drop the proceedings initiated by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota through orders dated 28/212.1989 and 27.01.1994. 2. On coming into force of Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘Old Ceiling Law’) on 01.04.1966 in respect of all areas other than the area covered by Rajasthan Canal Project, the petitioner filed a declaration of his holding under Rule 9 of Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) (Government) Rules, 1963 (for short ‘Old Ceiling Rules’) before Divisional Officer Chhabra on 27.09.1966. The petitioner gave particulars of his holdings by reference to 25.02.1958 to 01.04.1966 according to which the petitioner had in his sole khatedari 79 bigha 3 biswa equivalent to 31.5 Acres land in village Nanawata Tehsil Atru, District Baran and 15 bigha 17 biswa equivalent to 6.25 acres comprised khasra Nos. 767, 537, 765, 764 and 766 out of joint khatedari with brother Balram in village Nanawata. Total 95 bigha equivalent to 37.75 acres. The petitioner mentioned that 15 bigha 17 biswa land of joint khatedari was in his exclusive possession and 29 bigha 6 biswa of land were of share of petitioner’s brother Balram. 32 bigha 9 biswa land out of joint khatedari were of share of their mother Kesar Bai and the same were being cultivated by Smt. Kesar Bai separately from petitioner and his brother. The petitioner’s brother Balram submitted separate declaration on 27.09.1966 giving particulars of his holdings according to which he had in his sole khatedari 65 bigha 16 biswa equivalent to 26.25 Acres land in village Nanawata Tehsil Atru District Baran and 28 bigha 18 biswa equivalent to 11.50 acres comprised khasra Nos. 767, 768, 769, 748 and 824 out of joint khatedari with brother Hari Ram. Total 94 bigha 14 biswa equivalent to 37.75 acres. He also mentioned that 15 bigha 17 biswa land of joint khatedari was in possession of his brother Hari Ram and 33 bigha 9 biswa land out of joint khatedari were of share of their mother Kesar Bai and the same were being cultivated by Smt. Kesar Bai separately from petitioner and his brother. He also mentioned that 15 bigha 17 biswa land of joint khatedari was in possession of his brother Hari Ram and 33 bigha 9 biswa land out of joint khatedari were of share of their mother Kesar Bai and the same were being cultivated by Smt. Kesar Bai separately from petitioner and his brother. After receiving the report from Tehsildar Atru and Sub-Divisional Officer Chhabra examined the case of petitioner’s brother Balram under the Old Ceiling Law and vide order dated 06.05.1971 held that the lands held by Balram were not in excess of the ceiling limit and the ceiling proceedings against him were ordered to be droped. Similarly the case of petitioner was examined by the Divisional Officer Chhabra and vide order dated 07.05.1971 holding that the petitioner was not in excess of the lands beyond ceiling limit and the ceiling proceedings were ordered to be dropped. 3. Thereafter on coming into force the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short ‘New Ceiling Law’) from 01.01.1973, the Sub Divisional Officer Chhabra served a notice under Section 11(1) of New Ceiling Law and obtaining the report from Tehsildar Atru and held that Balram was holding 52.44 standard acres of land and he was entitled to retain only 30 acres of land, as such 22.44 acres land was in excess of the ceiling limit. In case of the petitioner it was held that the petitioner was in possession of less than 30 acres of land. The Sub Divisional Officer submitted the papers of reopening the proceedings under Old Ceiling Law against the brother of petitioner, however in File No. 12/78/ Ceiling initiated against the petitioner and his brother. Vide letter dated 110.1981 the Additional Collector (Revenue) Kota was directed to initiate reference proceedings under Section 232 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 subsequently transferred to the Court of Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota, who vide Judgment dated 28/212.1989 held that the petitioner was in possession of 41.05 standard acres of land on 01.04.1966 whereas he was entitled to retain 30 standard acres of land and 11.05 standard acres of land was in excess. In regard to brother of petitioner Balram it was held that he was in possession of 41.05 standard acres of land on 01.04.1966 whereas he was entitled to retain 35 standard acres of land and 6.05 standard acres of land was in excess. In regard to brother of petitioner Balram it was held that he was in possession of 41.05 standard acres of land on 01.04.1966 whereas he was entitled to retain 35 standard acres of land and 6.05 standard acres of land was in excess. With such observation the reference was made to Board of Revenue. 4. Long and short of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that half share of 103 bigha 18 biswa in holdings of petitioner of lands of village Gordi of sole khatedari of Balram was wrongly added. On 01.04.1966 the petitioner was neither entered as sole khatedar of land of Gordi nor any such land was in joint khatedari. The land 34 bighas 6 biswa of village Gordi was in khatedari of Kalyan Singh s/o Balram. On receiving the reference, the Board of Revenue served notices to petitioner and his brother. The petitioner took specific objection that the reference under Section 232 of 1955 Act to open a decided case under Old Ceiling Law is not competent. But the Board of Revenue directed them to appear before Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota on 20.09.1993, who vide Judgment dated 27.01.1994 made reference to Board of Revenue holding that the petitioner had 11.05 acres of land and his brother had 6.05 acres of land. The Board of Revenue vide Judgment dated 27.05.1996 accepted the reference. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that a decided case under a repealed provision cannot be reopened by reference under Section 232 of 1955 Act, therefore, the orders are without jurisdiction. The lands 32 bigha 9 biswa of the share of mother of petitioner wrongly been treated to be of petitioner. Reliance is placed on Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RRD 115 and Somoti Devi vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (3) WLC 688 (Raj). 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced before me and scrutinized the material on record. 7. I find merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel that a decided case under the repealed law could not be re-agitated by reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘1955 Act’). 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced before me and scrutinized the material on record. 7. I find merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel that a decided case under the repealed law could not be re-agitated by reference under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘1955 Act’). When there is a specific provision enabling reopening of a case and a limitation is prescribed by Act No. 11 of 1973, resort to Section 232 of 1955 Act was not permissible since Chapter III-B of 1955 Act stood repealed by Act No. 11 of 1973 w.e.f. 01.01.1973. 8. It also appears that in the course of hearing of the reference, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner and his brother Balram that reference was not competent, but the Board of Revenue did not decide the objection and remit the case to the Additional Collector for passing a fresh order. 9. Law relating to ceiling was introduced by incorporating Chapter III-B of 1955 Act. On coming intor force New Ceiling Law w.e.f. 01.01.1973, the Old Ceiling Law was repealed. A specific provision was made in Section 15(2) for reopening the decided matters. Second proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that no notice shall be issued after expiry of six years from the date of commencement of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan, (Supra) indicated as under :- “The established cannons of interpretation of statute require that plain meaning should be given to the words and phrases occurring in statute and consequently the words “within six years of the commencement of this Act” must necessarily mean commencement of the Ceiling Act 1973 and not the Amending Act so considered”. 10. The new Ceiling Law came into force w.e.f. 01.01.1973 and, therefore, Section 15(2) could not be invoked after the expiry of six years. Respondents in their reply also admitted this fact that the SDO submitted papers to the Collector and the Collector Kota by the order dated 110.1984 sent the papers to Additional Collector for initiating reference proceedings under Section 232 of 1955 Act and the Additional Collector passed order dated 212.1989. The proceedings were concededly initiated after expiry of six years. The State Government, therefore, had no jurisdiction under Section 15(2) to direct reopening the cases of the petitioner. 11. The proceedings were concededly initiated after expiry of six years. The State Government, therefore, had no jurisdiction under Section 15(2) to direct reopening the cases of the petitioner. 11. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 04.08.1993 and 27.05.1998 of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the proceedings initiated vide order dated 28/212.1989 and 27.01.1994 by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota are ordered to be dropped. There shall be no order as to costs.