Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—Instant petition is directed against re-opening of ceiling proceedings at the instance of Deputy Secretary (Ceiling) Revenue Department Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dt. 22.6.1982 (Ann. 1A) making Reference for inquiry to the District Collector, Bundi who declared 24 bighas 15 biswas of land as surplus vide order dt. 11.12.95 (Ann. 2) duly affirmed by Board of Revenue in revision vide judgment dt. 31.7.97 (Ann. 7), which the petitioner seeks to quash. 2. Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("Old Ceiling Law") came into force on 1.4.1963, under which every land holder having been in possession of land in excess of ceiling area as prescribed under Chapter III-B of Old Ceiling law was required to file written statement of his agricultural holdings before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Pursuant to which, Ram Narain, husband of petitioner, having khatedari rights over his agricultural holding measuring 84 bighas 15 biswas of land in village Kheriya Durjan Chambal Irrigation Area Group-I village, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, filed declaration u/R. 9 of Rajasthan Tenancy Fixation of Ceiling of land on Agricultural Holdings Rules ("Fixation Ceiling Rules") before SDO Bundi. The authority held that as on 1.4.1966, Shankerlal, one of the sons of land holder, was major and was entitled for a separate unit and accordingly proceedings were dropped vide order dt. 3.5.72. Thereafter, in view of S. 15 (2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ("New Ceiling Law") which was introduced by repealing Chapter III-B of Old Ceiling Law & published in Official Gazettee on 29.3.1973, Dy Secretary (Ceiling), Department of Revenue issued notice to husband of petitioner on 6.6.79 and after affording opportunity of hearing to him, ordered re-opening of ceiling proceedings vide order dt. 22.6.82 (Ann. 1A) and while making Reference authorities Additional Collector, Bundi to conduct inquiry and decide ceiling proceedings afresh. Pendente proceedings, on 15.11.83 land holder & husband of petitioner died whose legal heirs were brought on record who filed their reply to show cause notice on 14.8.85 but they failed to appear in proceedings and accordingly, ex parte proceedings were ordered on 7.7.89. However, Additional Collector Bundi vide order dt. 11.12.95 (Ann. Pendente proceedings, on 15.11.83 land holder & husband of petitioner died whose legal heirs were brought on record who filed their reply to show cause notice on 14.8.85 but they failed to appear in proceedings and accordingly, ex parte proceedings were ordered on 7.7.89. However, Additional Collector Bundi vide order dt. 11.12.95 (Ann. 2) held that on 1.4.1966, family of husband (land holder) of petitioner was consisting of five members; and there was no evidence brought on record that any of his sons including eldest son Shankerlal had attained majority on 1.4.66 and was entitled to hold a separate unit; and family being consisted of five members was entitled to retain 60 bighas of land under ceiling law and accordingly declared 24 bighas & 15 biswas of land as surplus. 3. However, petitioner, claiming herself as widow of land holder (Ramnarain), after passing of the order dt. 11.12.1995 (Ann. 2) passing of the older dt. 11.12.1995 (Ann. 2) filed two applications on 19.6.96 (Ann. 3) for setting aside ex parte proceedings and another on 6.7.96 (Ann. 5) for re-calling order dt. 11.12.95 & for conducting proceedings afresh on the premise that despite being legal heir and necessary party, she was not afforded opportunity of hearing; which were rejected vide order dt. 11.9.96 (Ann. 6) holding that her husband was duly represented by her sons and her rights were not at all in any manner adversely affected - against which she preferred revision (No. 174/96/T/A/Bundi) before Board of Revenue and which too was dismissed vide judgment dt. 31.7.97 (Ann. 7). 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that u/S. 15(2), limitation has been prescribed of six years from the date of commencement of new ceiling law (Ceiling Act, 1973) viz. 1.1.1973) and six years being expired on 1.1.1979 their case could not have been reopened u/S. 15(2) of the Act, 1973 thereafter and thus very notice issued on 6.6.79 for re-opening of proceedings were without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. In support, Counsel relied upon decision of this Court (DB) in Dhanraj vs. State (1995 RRD 15). 5. 1.1.1973) and six years being expired on 1.1.1979 their case could not have been reopened u/S. 15(2) of the Act, 1973 thereafter and thus very notice issued on 6.6.79 for re-opening of proceedings were without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. In support, Counsel relied upon decision of this Court (DB) in Dhanraj vs. State (1995 RRD 15). 5. Besides legal objection raised, Counsel for petitioner submits that she being widow is also legal heir & representative of deceased land holder but no opportunity of hearing was afforded either by Deputy Secretary or Additional Collector on re-opening of proceedings under new ceiling law, which has caused prejudice to her and her application against ex parte order was arbitrarily rejected by Additional Collector and also by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan under orders impugned. Counsel further submits that having failed to consider submissions of petitioners in right perspective, how far re-opening of ceiling proceedings could be said to be sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Contrarily Government Counsel while supporting orders impugned submits that after Act No. 6 of 1979 came into force from 30.12.78 whereby second proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 15 of new ceiling law was substituted; according to which notice could have been issued for re-opening of ceiling proceeding within seven years from the date of final order sought to be re-opened or upto 30th June, 1979, whichever is latter. Taking note thereof, Government Counsel submits that in instant case, notices were issued indisputably on 6.6.79 which was much within period of limitation; and duly covered under 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 15 of new ceiling law duly amended by Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment & Validation) Act (No. 6 of 1979. 7. Taking note thereof, Government Counsel submits that in instant case, notices were issued indisputably on 6.6.79 which was much within period of limitation; and duly covered under 2nd proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 15 of new ceiling law duly amended by Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment & Validation) Act (No. 6 of 1979. 7. Government Counsel further submits that family of petitioner was consisting of five members as on 1.4.1966 entitled for one unit which has been finally upheld even under orders impugned and her right in all respect has been protected and as regards other children, no documents came on record by which it could be inferred that either of them had attained majority on 1.4.66; certainly there was excess land in their holdings which have rightly been declared surplus vide orders impugned and petitioner being duly represented by co-legal heirs/representatives of deceased land holder, her cause has not been prejudiced even in case of alleged ex parte proceedings initiated during re-opening of ceiling proceedings; as such order impugned does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Before examining legal issue which the petitioner has raised for the first time, this Court would like to look at the old & new ceiling laws. 9. Indisputably, after Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Old Ceiling law) came into force on 1.4.1963, all such land holders having in possession of excess land over ceiling area were required to file declaration before SDO concerned; pursuant to which, petitioner's husband as he then was, also submitted his declaration which was accepted and finally proceedings were dropped on 3.5.1972; however, notices were issued for re-opening of ceiling proceedings by Dy. Secretary (Ceiling) Revenue Department, Jaipur on 6.6.79 and after hearing the parties, proceedings were reopened for fresh decision u/S. 15(2) of new Ceiling law vide order dt. 22.6.82 (Ann. 1A). Pending proceedings on account of death of land holder (her husband) on 15.11.83, his legal heirs/representative were brought on record and they submitted their written reply on 14.8.85. 10. Ceiling Act, 1973 (New ceiling law) (Act No. 11 of 1973) was introduced vide notification dt. 22.6.82 (Ann. 1A). Pending proceedings on account of death of land holder (her husband) on 15.11.83, his legal heirs/representative were brought on record and they submitted their written reply on 14.8.85. 10. Ceiling Act, 1973 (New ceiling law) (Act No. 11 of 1973) was introduced vide notification dt. 1.1.1973 but was published in official gazette on 29.3.73 on having received the assent of the President on 28.3.1973 and as per Rajasthan Act No. 12 of 1974 substituting S.1(3) of Act, 1973, it shall be deemed to have come in force in whole of the State of Rajasthan with effect from the 1st day of January, 1973. 11. The Ceiling Act, 1973 was basically introduced by State Government with the object that area of agricultural land available for cultivation in the State is limited and there had been disparity in holding of agricultural land which necessitated to adopt land reforms & acquisition of lands from the hands of persons with whom large chunk of lands is concentrated, and it was considered necessary to acquire agricultural land in excess of ceiling area and to distribute such lands to landless & other persons among rural population as it would sub serve common good, increase agricultural production & promote justice, social and economic. 12. With a prime object to reduce such disparity & to refix ceiling area on agricultural holdings, Act of 1973 was enacted and with regard to period of limitation for re-opening of ceiling proceedings either under Old or New ceiling law, suitable amendments were made so that purpose of enactment (Act, 1973) could be served. 13. Let me advert to provisions of Act, 1973 which are relevant for deciding the controversy raised herein since matter pertains to re-opening of proceedings of old ceiling law u/S. 15(2) of Act, 1973 which came into force from 1.1.73.- "15. Power to re-open Cases: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision of this Act, if the State Government at any time, within three years of publication of the final statement under Section 13, is satisfied that, the ceiling area in relation to a person has been determined in contravention of the provisions of this Act, is may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open a decided case and inquire into it and to determining the ceiling area and the surplus area afresh in accordance with provisions of this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40, if the State Government, at any time within three years of the commencement of this Act, is satisfied that the ceiling area in relation to a person as fixed under the law repealed by the said section has been determined in contravention of the provisions of such repealed law, it may direct any officer subordinate to it, to re-open a decided and inquire into it and to determine the ceiling area and the surplus area, afresh in accordance with the provisions of such repealed law. U/s. 15(2) of Act, 1973, powers vest with State Government to reopen ceiling cases of old ceiling law (Chapter III-B of Tenancy Act). However, for re-opening cases decided under old ceiling law, initially in the principal Act, of 1973, period of limitation was three years from commencement of this Act 1973 i.e. from 1.1.1973, which was amended vide Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (Ordinance No. 12 of 1975) making it effective w.e.f. 15.8.1975 ad infra: "3. Amendment of Section 15, Rajasthan Act 11 of 1973 - For section 15 of the principal Act, the following section shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, namely: "15. Amendment of Section 15, Rajasthan Act 11 of 1973 - For section 15 of the principal Act, the following section shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, namely: "15. Power to re-open cases.- (1) xx xx xx (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to it under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by section 40, is in contravention of such repealed provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may, at any time, within five years of commencement of this Act, direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions: Provided that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in sub-section (2) shall be directed to be re-opened and decided afresh under the said sub-sections unless the State Government is satisfied that such order is required to be re-opened on account of its discovery of new and importance matter or evidence which has since come to its notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." Thus, by virtue of amendment Ordinance No. 12 of 1975 (supra), Section 15(2) of Ceiling Act, 1975 came to be substituted as quoted (supra) according to which, for re-opening cases decided under old ceiling law, period of limitation was increased from Three to Five years. 14. Since Ceiling Act, 1973 came into force on 1.1.1973, period of limitation provided therein was going to expire on 31.12.1977, and by that time, large number of cases remained pending where order of re-opening ceiling cases were due to be passed, and the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was not in session, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (No. 4 of 1977) was promulgated and came into force on 29.12.1977 making amendment in S. 15 ad infra: "2. Amendment of section 15, Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973. Amendment of section 15, Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973. - In section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act No. 11 of 1973)- (i) in sub-section (1), for the expressions "three years" and "two years" the expressions "four years" and "three years" respectively shall be and shall be deemed always to have been substituted. (ii) In sub-section (2), for the words "five years" the words "six years" shall be substituted." Thus, in S.15(1) expressions "three years" & "two years", were substituted by "four years" and "three years" respectively while in S. 15 (2), the words "five years", were substituted by "six years", which became effective a day prior to period of limitation being expired viz. 29.12.1977; and immediately when Rajasthan Legislative Assembly came into sessions, amendment was introduced by Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1978 (Act No. 6 of 1978) making it effective from 8.4.78 and its S. 2 provided substitution of S. 15 of Rajasthan Act No. 11of 1973 (Principal Act) ad infra: "2. Substitution of Section 15, Rajasthan Act 11 of 1973 - Section 15 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act 11 of 1973, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, shall be substituted by the following, namely:- "15. Power to re-open cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under this Act is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that no such direction shall be issued unless a notice to show cause against the proposed action he has served upon the person concerned: Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of three years of the commencement of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975, whichever is later. (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to it under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by section 40, is in contravention of such repealed provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions: Provided that no such direction shall be issued unless a notice to show cause against the proposed action has been served upon the person concerned. Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of six years of commencement of this Act; Provided that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in sub-section (1) or in sub-section (2) shall be directed to be re-opened and decided afresh under the said sub-sections unless the State Government is satisfied that such order is required to be re-opened on account of its discovery of new and importance matter or evidence which has since come to its notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." As a result of substitution (supra) of S. 15 of Principal Act 1973, itself, by amendment Act No. 6 of 1978 making it effective w.e.f. 8.4.1978, in case of re-opening of ceiling case decided under New ceiling law, no notice as referred to in 1st proviso to S. 15(1) can be issued after expiry of four years from the date of final order sought to be re-opened or after expiry of three year from commencement of amendment Ordinance No. 12 of 1975, whichever is later, as provided in 2nd proviso to S. 15(1); and similarly, in case of re-opening of ceiling case decided under repealed law (old ceiling law), no notice under 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) can be issued after expiry of six years of commencement of this Act, 1973. Followed thereto, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding (2nd amendment) Ordinance, 1978 was promulgated on 14.8.1978 whereby amendment was made and expression "three years of commencement of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975" was substituted by expression "the 31st day of December, 1978" in 2nd proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 15 of Act, 1973, which was taken note of while Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment & Validation) Act, 1979 (Act No. 6 of 1979) received the assent of the President on 7.4.1979 so as to further amend the Ceiling Act, 1973 and as per S. 1(2) of Amendment Act No. 6 of 1979, it shall be deemed to have come in force on 30.12.1978; by which S. 15 of Principal Act of 1973 was further substituted ad infra in relation to the period (a) from 1.1.73 to 7.4.78 and (b) from 8.4.78 to 13.8.78:- "2. Amendment of section 15, Rajasthan Act -11 of 1973.- (1) Section 15 of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (Rajasthan Act -11 of 1973), herein after referred to as the principal Act,- (a) in relation to the period from the 1st day of January, 1973 to the 7th day of April, 1978 shall be deemed to have been substituted by the following, namely: "15. Power to re-open cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under this Act is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may, at any time, within four years of the date of such final order or within three years from the 15th day of August, 1975 whichever is later, direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act." (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to it under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by section 40, is in contravention of such repealed provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may, at any time within six years from the commencement of this Act, direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions: Provided that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in sub-section (1) or in sub-section (2) shall be directed to be re-opened and decided afresh under the said sub-sections unless the State Government is satisfied that such order is required to be re-opened on account of its discovery of new and importance matter or evidence which has since come to its notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." (b) in relation to the period from the 8th day of April, 1978 to the 13th day of August, 1978 shall be deemed to have been substituted by the following, namely: 15. Power to re-open cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under this Act is in contravention of the provisions of this Act and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that no such direction shall be issued unless a notice to show cause against the proposed action have been served upon the person concerned. Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of four years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of three years of the 15th day of August, 1975 whichever is later. (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to it under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by section 40, is in contravention of such repealed provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important or evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions: Provided that no such direction shall be issued unless a notice to show cause against the proposed action has been served upon the person concerned. Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of six years of commencement of this Act; Provided that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in sub-section (1) or in sub-section (2) shall be directed to be re-opened and decided afresh under the said sub-sections unless the State Government is satisfied that such order is required to be re-opened on account of its discovery of new and importance matter or evidence which has since come to its notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." As per S. 2(2) of Amendment Act, 1979, 2nd proviso to Sub-sections (1) & (2) in Section 15 of the Principal Act, 1973, both were substituted ad infra: "(2) In Section 15 of the Principal Act- (a) the second proviso to sub-section (1) shall be substituted by the following, namely: "Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of five years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of the 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later." (b) the second proviso to sub-section (2) shall be substituted by the following, namely: "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 re-opened or after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later." A bare perusal of afore-quoted provisions depicts that S. 15 of Ceiling Act, 1973 has undergone a series of amendments in regard to period of limitation prescribed for initiating proceedings for re-opening of ceiling cases decided under old or new Ceiling law in exercise of powers vested u/S. 15(1) & 15(2) of the Act, 1973, which initially came into force on 1.1.73, was Three years from commencement of this Act. 15. 15. Object apparently for such amendments was that cases under old & new ceiling law could not re-opened within period of limitation and before its expiry, suitable amendments were brought into force from time to time either by way of Ordinance while Rajasthan Legislative Assembly was not in Sessions or by enactment of amendment Act, of 1978 or 1979, as the case may be so that period of limitation may not come in way denying right of authority for re-opening of ceiling proceedings under old or new law. 16. u/S. 2(1) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding (Amendment & Validation Act, 1979 (Act No. 6 of 1979) amendment in S. 15 of principal Act No. 11 of 1973 was made for two categories of periods (a) from 1.1.1973 to 7.4.1978 and (b) from 8.4.78 to 13.8.78. These dates taken note of while making amendment under Validation Act No. 6 of 1979 also have direct nexus since date (1.1.1973) was the commencement of principal Act No. 11 of 1973 and w.e.f. 8.4.1978, Amendment Act No. 6 of 1978 came into force and for category (a) (from 1.1.73 to 7.4.78) period of limitation u/S. 15(2) remains six years, and no further amendment was made. 17. But, as regards category (b) (from 8.4.78 to 13.8.78), since for reopening of cases of old ceiling law u/S. 15(2), period of limitation was six years from the commencement of principal Act, 1973 (1.1.73) by virtue of amendment Act No. 6 of 1978 before validation 2nd amendment ordinance, 1978 was promulgated on 14.8.78 all such amendments either by way of ordinance or by enactment were validated under amendment & validation Act No. 6 of 1979 and 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) referred to in relation to period from 8.4.1978 to 13.8.78 by virtue of S. 2(2) of Validation Act, 1979 stood substituted by "no notice referred to in foregoing proviso shall be issued after expiry of seven years from the date of final order sought to be re-opened or after expiry of 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later." 18. Taking note of Ceiling Act, 1973 and amendments having come into force from time to time, reference whereof has been made supra, it clearly emerges that date of notice issued for re-opening of decided cases under old or new ceiling law become decisive & crucial date while deciding the controversy raised herein. 19. Taking note of Ceiling Act, 1973 and amendments having come into force from time to time, reference whereof has been made supra, it clearly emerges that date of notice issued for re-opening of decided cases under old or new ceiling law become decisive & crucial date while deciding the controversy raised herein. 19. In instant case, notice was issued in exercise of powers u/S. 15(2) of Ceiling Act, 1973 on 6.6.79 and present case falls within category (b) of period from 8.4.78 to 13.8.78, for which as per substituted 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) of the Act, 1973, period of limitation was seven years from the date of final order sought to be re-opened or upto 30th June, 1979 whichever is later and thus notice issued to the petitioner on 6.6.79 was much within a period of limitation as contemplated vide substituted 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) of the Principal Act, 1973; as such, foremost legal submission made by Counsel for petitioner that period of limitation was six years from the date of commencement of Principal Act, 1973 which according to him was expired on 1.1.1979, in the opinion of this Court is without merit and deserves rejection. 20. As regards judgment of this Court (DB) in Dhanraj vs. State (supra) on which Counsel for petitioner placed reliance, suffice it to say that it was a case where notice was issued on 7.2.89 which was after 30.6.79 as prescribed in 2nd proviso to S. 15 (2) of the Principal Act, 1973 and that apart, it appear from para 6 of the judgment that this Court was not apprised of the changes and amendments being made from time to time while substituted 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) came into force by virtue of amendment Act No. 6 of 1979 (supra), however, the Division Bench in para 6 observed that "u/S. 15 as it stood before the amendment of 1979 vide Act No. 6 of 1979 the limitation prescribed u/S. 15(1) was five years from the date of final order sought to be reopened or after 30.6.79 whichever is later and cases arising out of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, was seven years of the date of final order sought to be reopened or after expiry of 30.6.79, whichever is later", which is factually incorrect while in fact limitation period of six years under proviso 2nd to S. 15(2) as amendment vide Act. No. 6 of 1978, which was made effective from 8.4.78, stood substituted by S. 2(2) of Validation & Amendment Act No. 6 of 1979, and as per substituted 2nd proviso to S. 15(2), period of limitation to issue notice for re-opening of decided cases under old ceiling law became seven years from the date of final order sought to be reopened or upto 30.6.79 whichever is later; while the question in instant case is as to what will be the effect after 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) stood substituted by Amendment Act No. 6 of 1979; hence judgment on which Counsel placed reliance in the facts of instant case is of no assistance to petitioner. 21. Counsel for petitioner also submits that S. 2(1) of Amendment Act No. 6 of 1979 has to be read harmoniously with S.2(2) of amendment Act which comes to the logical conclusion that period of limitation was six year from the commencement of principal Act, 1973 (1.1.1973) as considered by Division Bench. In the opinion of this Court, such a contention is of no substance for the reason that there is no occasion to have any harmonious construction. Since its plain language is unambiguous, and it does not call upon this Court to have any further interpretation since the period of limitation in relation to (a) & (b) being covered u/S. 15 pertains to notices issued for re-opening of proceedings under old or new ceiling law and notice was issued much before the appointed date 30.6.79, it would certainly fall within category (b) and 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) stood substituted by S. 2(2) of Amendment Act, 1979. In the considered opinion of this Court, amended/substituted 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) of the Act, 1973 will be applicable in respect of period of limitation and notice being issued on 6.6.79 to the land holder was within period of limitation and the authority was within its competence to decide the re-opening of ceiling proceedings impugned. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, amended/substituted 2nd proviso to S. 15(2) of the Act, 1973 will be applicable in respect of period of limitation and notice being issued on 6.6.79 to the land holder was within period of limitation and the authority was within its competence to decide the re-opening of ceiling proceedings impugned. 22. Submission made by Counsel for the petitioner that she despite being widow of landholder was neither impleaded as party respondent after death of her husband (land holder), which as alleged has resulted in denying her right of opportunity and despite her application being submitted for re-calling of the proceedings, that too has been arbitrarily rejected, in the opinion of this Court, is of no substance for the reason that petitioner's sons who too were legal heirs/representatives of the deceased (land holder) were duly impleaded as party respondents in pending ceiling proceedings after death of her husband on 15.11.83 and they submitted their written statement before the authority on 14.8.85 raising objections available to them under law and in absence of petitioner's impleadment as party respondent being L/rs of deceased land holder having no adverse interest in the estate of deceased and being sufficiently represented, in the proceedings and merely because one of L/rs (wife of deceased land holder in such circumstances, even if remained unrepresented, that will in no manner abate the proceedings having been finally decided by authority under law. 23. That apart, only objection being noticed for re-opening of proceedings and having been decided under old ceiling law, that one (Shakerlal) son of deceased land holder attained majority as on 1.4.66 and was entitled for a separate unit, was the fact taken note of for dropping the proceedings. But material having come on record is that none of his children attained majority on 1.4.66 and being in all five members in the family of land holder who were entitled to retain 60 bighas and 15 biswas of land was surplus in their hands, which was finally upheld by Addl. Collector and Board of Revenue under orders impugned. But material having come on record is that none of his children attained majority on 1.4.66 and being in all five members in the family of land holder who were entitled to retain 60 bighas and 15 biswas of land was surplus in their hands, which was finally upheld by Addl. Collector and Board of Revenue under orders impugned. Even before this Court, nothing has been placed on record that the family of deceased land holder was entitled for an additional unit as on 1.4.66 and they all being members of one family were entitled for single unit having common interest in estate of the deceased land holder under ceiling law, which was retained under order impugned; no prejudice in absence of her impleadment in any manner has caused to them. 24. This Court finds no manifest error of law in the orders impugned which may call for interference u/Art. 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. 25. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.