Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1173 (RAJ)

Bhola Ram v. Board of Revenue

2011-05-30

ALOK SHARMA, ARUN MISHRA

body2011
Hon'ble MISHR, CJ.—It is submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the matter is covered by the Full Bench decision rendered by this Court. Following relevant discussion has been made by the Full Bench- "The following questions are referred to this Bench for adjudication in pursuant to the order dated July 25, 2002:- Whether in view of affirmance of judgment in Paro Devi's case by Supreme Court vide its order dated 18th Feb., 1994 dismissing the appeal, Division Bench decision in Ram Gopal's case is impliedly overruled. In case the answer is in the negative, which of the two divergent opinion of Division Bench lays down the law correctly? The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Pari Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (1984 RLR 931), while setting aside the order for reopening of the ceiling proceedings as per Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Act of 1973"), held that it is not open to the authority competent to proceed again under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as "the old Ceiling Law"), after the proceedings had been initiated and culminated in favour of an Agricultural Land Holder under Section 15(4) of the Act of 1973." Following is the conclusion:- "In the case of Pari Devi (supra) leave to appeal was granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court was invoked, thus, the order passed in appeal would certainly attract the doctrine of merger and that affirms the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pari Devi. That being the position of law, the law laid down in the case of Ram Gopal is not a correct one, that stands impliedly overruled and the law laid down in Pari Devi's Case (supra) holds the field in the subject matter. 2. In view of the decision of Pari Devi (supra) in which it has been laid down that it is not open to the authority competent to proceed again under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 after the proceedings had been initiated and culminated in favour of an Agricultural Land Holder under Section 15(4) of the Act of 1973. 3. 3. In view of the above, the order passed by the Single Bench as well as Board of Revenue and other authority are hereby quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed.