Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 899 (RAJ)

Jagroop Singh v. State of Raj.

2008-03-27

M.N.BHANDARI, NARAYAN ROY

body2008
Honble Roy, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General. 2. This appeal is directed against the order-dated 4.2.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 327/1999 whereby and where under the writ application was dismissed. 3. The writ application was filed challenging the order-dated 22.6.1993 whereby and whereunder the State Government had reviewed its earlier decision dated 17.3.1992 by which a decision was taken not to reopen the ceiling proceedings under the new Ceiling Act. 4. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. A proceeding under the provisions of Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1973") was initiated against the predecessors of the appellant, which however, was dropped on 4.5.1972. Thereafter, the proceedings were also dropped under the provisions of new Ceiling Act on 30.12.1975. In the year 1983, the State Government again took a decision to reopen the matter under the new Act. The same was challenged but action of the authorities for reopening the proceeding under the new Act was upheld by a Bench of this Court on 12.9.1983. The same, however, was also affirmed by the Apex Court on 29.7.1991. On 17.3.1992, ultimately the Government decided not to reopen the matter and accordingly on 25.6.1992 the proceeding was dropped by the State Government. After a period of one year, the State Government vide its order dated 22.6.1993 reviewed its earlier decision dated 17.3.1992. That reviewed decision, however, was challenged before the Jaipur Bench. The Writ Application however was disposed at Jaipur Bench setting aside the decision to review and the matter was remitted back to the State Government for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the writ petitioners. Reference may be made in Writ Petition No. 1453/1994 and other connected matters Nazar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench against which no appeal was filed holds good and, therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge would not be sustainable. It is further submitted that at a latter stage, a decision was taken at the level of Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan not to go ahead with the ceiling proceedings against the appellants and others. It is further submitted that at a latter stage, a decision was taken at the level of Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan not to go ahead with the ceiling proceedings against the appellants and others. Order passed by the Jaipur Bench in the writ applications aforementioned has been produced before us for perusal. 6. It is not in dispute that reopening of the ceiling proceeding was set aside by the Jaipur Bench and no appeal was filed against that order. It further appears that pursuant to the directions issued by the Jaipur Bench the State Government ultimately implemented the same by not proceeding against the persons under the provisions of Ceiling Act. 7. In view of the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench in our view, the order impugned would not be sustainable else there will be conflicting decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this very High Court. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. No order as to costs.