Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1384 (RAJ)

Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-07-14

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition pertaining to the agricultural land ceiling matter and preferred in challenge to the order dated 19.12.1989 (Annex. 10) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board of Revenue') was earlier considered and allowed on 18.02.1997 with the Court essentially accepting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner-assessee that the ceiling case having been decided under the old ceiling law (i.e., the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) and so also under the new ceiling law (i.e., the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973), as per the ratio of the decision in Smt. Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan : 1984 RLR 931 , the proceedings could not have been re-opened under the old ceiling law. 2. The present matter was taken in intra-court appeal and was considered by the Honble Division Bench alongwith cognate matters; and the appeal relating to the present case (SAW No. 337/2003) was considered and decided on 11.01.2011 in the common order as made in SAW No. 312/1998. The Hon'ble Division Bench found it just and proper to set aside the earlier order passed in this writ petition and to restore the writ petition to its number for decision on merits essentially with the observations that the aforesaid decision in Pari Devi's case was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal v. State of Rajasthan : 1989 (1) RLW 670 ; and the contention urged on behalf of the State was that the ratio of Pari Devi, to a large extent, stood either over-ruled or, in any event, diluted in Ram Gopal's case. The Hon'ble Division Bench, therefore, directed that the case be decided afresh keeping in view the law laid down in Ram Gopal's case or any other law for the time being in force governing the issue involved. 3. After such remand of the matter, the petitioner has moved an application (IA No. 2896/2011) seeking to amend the writ petition so as to urge other and additional grounds regarding the nature of the land holdings. However, on the matter being taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed on this application for amendment. Accordingly, the application (IA No. 2896/2011) is rejected as not pressed. 4. However, on the matter being taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed on this application for amendment. Accordingly, the application (IA No. 2896/2011) is rejected as not pressed. 4. It is submitted that though the matter has been remanded by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 11.01.2011 taking note of the submissions that the ratio in Pari Devi's case stands over-ruled or, in any event, diluted by the decision in Ram Gopal's case but then, after this order by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the matter has been considered by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sahas Karan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: CWP No. 2598/1989 on the specific reference made on the question about the law governing the filed, particularly when the decision in Pari Devi's case had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and, after considering the law on the subject, the Hon'ble Larger Bench has answered the reference on 13.04.2011 as under:- "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. The reference made is answered accordingly." 5. It is submitted that with the aforesaid declaration of law by the Larger Bench of this Court, the issue no longer remains res integra; Pari Devi's decision has been held operating and governing the field while the decision in Ram Gopal has been held impliedly over-ruled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and, thus, the re-opened proceedings in the present case under the old ceiling law deserve to be annulled. It is also pointed out that the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 30.05.2011 as passed in SAW No. 249/2001 (Bhola Ram & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors. It is also pointed out that the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 30.05.2011 as passed in SAW No. 249/2001 (Bhola Ram & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors. ) wherein, after noticing the decision of the Larger Bench in Sahas Karan (supra), the Honble Division Bench has held 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 has been initiated and culminated in favour of the land holder under Section 15 (4) of the Act of 1973. 6. In the present case, initially the proceedings under the old ceiling law (Case No. 6/1970) were decided on 04.11.1970. Thereafter, the proceedings under the new ceiling law (Case No. 6/1973) were decided on 25.10.1975. However, the Government chose to re-open the case decided on 04.11.1970 under the old ceiling law by its order dated 20.07.1978. In these re-opened proceedings, the Additional Collector, Pali passed the impugned order dated 06.11.1987 (Annex. 9) that has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order dated 19.12.1989 (Annex.10). As noticed above, as per the law declared in Pari Devi's case (that has been held governing the field by the Larger Bench of this Court), it was not permissible for the authorities to re-open the proceedings under the old ceiling law; particularly when the proceedings had been completed under the new ceiling law. 7. In view of the above, this writ petition is required to be, and is, allowed. The re-opening order dated 29.07.1978 and the consequential orders dated 06.11.1987 (Annex. 9) and 19.12.1989 (Annex. 1) are quashed. 8. However, in the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******