Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2262 (RAJ)

Kaushalya Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2012-12-05

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - At the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition has been finally heard at this stage itself. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the proceedings sought to be adopted by the respondent-State while treating them as trespassers over the land in question. 3. The petitioners submit that they had purchased the land in question at Chak 29 GB, Tehsil Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar, as comprised in Murraba Nos. 116/28 and 114/26 admeasuring about 16 bighas, from one Shri Narendra Singh (now represented by his son - respondent No.5), which is alleged to have been resumed in the reopened agricultural land ceiling proceedings against the said Shri Narendra Singh. The petitioners further submit that the ceilings proceedings against the assessee Shri Narendra Singh were dropped under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (`the old ceiling law') by the order dated 19.04.1971; and that after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ('the Act of 1973'/'the new ceiling law'), the Authorised Officer considered again the matter against the said assessee and, again, dropped the proceedings by his order dated 24.03.1975. 4. 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 v. 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 alleged re-opened proceedings in relation to their predecessor under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 and the orders passed thereupon. 5. With these submissions, the petitioners seek to question the alleged re-opened proceedings in relation to their predecessor under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 and the orders passed thereupon. 5. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners, and the learned Government Counsel is not in a position to controvert, that the matter in issue has been set at rest by a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Sahas Karan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., CWP No. 2598/1989 wherein, 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 13.04.2011 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." It is also pointed out that this Court has, with reference to the above, allowed the other writ petition involving similar facts and identical issues, being CWP No. 1902/2001, Karnel Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., on 13.10.2011 , while observing as under:- "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 30.05.2011 as passed in SAW No. 249/2001, Bhola Ram & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors. 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 30.05.2011 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 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. 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." 6. The position aforesaid directly and squarely applies to the present case too. 7. Thus, following the decisions aforesaid, the present writ petition is also allowed in the same terms and with the same directions. No costs.Petition allowed. *******