Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2204 (RAJ)

Karnel Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-13

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2011
Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—The petitioners, said to have purchased different parcels of agricultural land situated at Chak 29 BG Tehsil Anupgarh, have filed this writ petition questioning the proceedings whereby the land in question is sought to be resumed in the agricultural land ceiling proceedings concerning their predecessor Shri Narendra Singh (represented by the respondent No. 5 herein). 2. It is pointed out, inter alia, that after submission of the requisite declaration by the assessee Shri Narendra Singh, the Authorised Officer dropped the ceiling proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the old ceiling law') against him by the order dated 19.4.1971 (Annex. 2) as passed in Ceiling Case No. 4/1971. It is also submitted that after coming into force of 1973'/`the new ceiling law'), the Authorised Officer considered the matter in Ceiling Case No. 909/1973 and, again, dropped the proceedings by his order dated 24.3.1975 (Annex. 3). It is contended that the ceiling case in relation to the assessee Narendra Singh 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 vs. State of Rajasthan: 1984 RLR 931, the proceedings could not have been re-opened under the old ceiling law. With these submissions, the petitioners seek to question the attempt on the part of the respondents in re-opening the proceedings in relation to their predecessor under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 and the order as passed by the Additional Collector (Admn.) Sriganganagar on 25.1.1982 (Annex. 4). 3. The respondents in their reply have, inter alia, contended that the law laid down in Pari Devi's case (supra) did not remain a good law in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Gopal vs. State of Rajasthan: 1989(1) RLW 670. 4. It is, however, an admitted position now that since after filing of this writ petition and the reply, the matter in issue has been set at rest by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sahas Karan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: CWP No. 2598/1989. 5. 4. It is, however, an admitted position now that since after filing of this writ petition and the reply, the matter in issue has been set at rest by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sahas Karan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: CWP No. 2598/1989. 5. In the case of Sahas Karan (supra),on the specific reference made on the question about the law governing the field, particularly when the decision in Pari Devi's case had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Larger Bench has answered the reference on 13.4.2011 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." 6. With the aforesaid declaration of law by the Larger Bench of this Court, the issue no longer remains res integra; and 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. Thus, the re-opened proceedings in the present case under the old ceiling law deserve to be annulled. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 30.5.2011 as passed in SAW No. 249/2001 (Bhola Ram & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.) wherein, after noticing the decision of the Larger Bench in Sahas Karan (supra), the Hon'ble 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 had been initiated and culminated in favour of the land holder under Section 15(4) of the Act of 1973. 7. 7. In view of the above, the other aspects of the matter do not appear requiring adjudication and the re-opening of the ceiling proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 in relation to the predecessor of the petitioners is required to be annulled as being unauthorised. As a necessary consequence, all the proceedings pursuant to the orders passed upon such re-opening also stand annulled and are rendered rather non-est. The writ petition stands allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs.