Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 820 (RAJ)

Hanwant Singh v. State of Raj.

2008-03-17

M.N.BHANDARI, NARAYAN ROY

body2008
Honble ROY, CJ.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.12.1996 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present matter involves issue of limitation for reopening of ceiling case as per provisions of Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1973). According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the ceiling case, in the present case, was reopened after expiry of the period of limitation provided under Section 15 of the Act of 1973. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after holding that in view of the amendment in Section 15 by way of Amending Act No.6 of 1979, the period of limitation under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 was provided as seven years or 30.6.1979 whichever is later and thereby it was held that the re-opening of the case was within limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of this Court in Dhanraj & Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RRD 115. It is contended that the present matter is covered by the aforesaid judgment. It is prayed that the present matter may be directed to be governed by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Dhanraj (supra). Thus, the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondents be directed to cover this present matter also in the light of the judgment of Dhanraj (supra). It is informed that the judgment in the case of Dhanraj has even been upheld by the Honble Apex Court vide the order dated 29.1.1996. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the issue aforesaid needs to be considered in reference to the date of notice by which the ceiling case was opened and while considering the aforesaid aspect, the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1973 would be taken into consideration, because the ceiling proceeding under old ceiling law as finalized vide order dated 31.12.1971. Thus taking note of the date when the final order aforesaid was passed, the period of limitation is required to be determined. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Thus taking note of the date when the final order aforesaid was passed, the period of limitation is required to be determined. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Since the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants is only to the effect that a direction may be issued to cover the present appeal by the judgment of this Court in the case of Dhanraj vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). The aforesaid judgment was otherwise upheld by the Honble Apex Court. In these circumstances, since the prayer of the appellants is limited, hence this Court is not required to look into larger issue of the limitation of reopening of the case as the said issue can be looked into by the respondents in reference to the judgment of Dhanraj & others and after applying the amended provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1973 as was amended vide the Amending Act 6 of 1979 vide the notification dated 30.12.1978. The aforesaid amendment was not otherwise made retrospective. The notice for re-opening of ceiling case as otherwise mentioned in the present writ petition is dated 17.5.1979 which is then prior to 30.6.1979 as mentioned under the Amending Act. However, since the aforesaid issue was not decided by the Board of Revenue, thus the respondents will consider this aspect by taking correct date of issuance of notice so served on the appellant in determining the issue of limitation. The relevant provision of Section 15 as amended by the notification dated 30.12.1978 is, however, hereby quoted for ready reference: - "15(1) Provided further that no notice referred to in foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of five years from the date of the final order sought to be reopened or after the expiry of the 30.6.1979, whichever is later. 15(2) Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of seven years from the date of the final order sought to be reopened of after the expiry of 30.6.1979, whichever is later". 6. Perusal of the above quoted amendment shows that the same was made in the proviso to the provisions of Sections 15(1) and 15(2) and the aforesaid amended provisions further shows that they are prospective in operation. 6. Perusal of the above quoted amendment shows that the same was made in the proviso to the provisions of Sections 15(1) and 15(2) and the aforesaid amended provisions further shows that they are prospective in operation. Therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to determine the issue of limitation for reopening of the ceiling case by considering the aforesaid amended provision. 7. In view of the above, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside with the direction to the respondents to cover the case of the appellants pursuant to the amendment made to the proviso of Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Act of 1973 and, while doing so, judgment in the case of Dhanraj (supra) may also be looked into. If the respondents come to the conclusion that the notice for reopening was issued beyond the period of limitation, then the ceiling proceedings so issued may be recalled or set aside. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal of the appellants is allowed with no order as to costs.