Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 884 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Man Singh

2015-04-20

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 26.09.2006 passed by Additional Collector (Ceiling), Pali ('Collector') and judgment dated 11.12.2013 passed by Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer ('Board'), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner State has been rejected. 2. Ceiling proceedings were initiated against assessee - Manohar Singh under the provisions of Chapter - III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (old ceiling law) and the Sub Divisional Officer, Sojat ('SDO') decided Case No. 288/1971 by judgment dated 28.10.1975 held that the assessee was not holding any land in excess of ceiling limit, however, the proceedings were ordered to be re-opened by order dated 06.05.1982 passed by the State Government under Section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ('the Act of 1973') and the Collector was directed to decide the case of the assessee afresh; in the meanwhile after coming into force of the Act of 1973 proceedings No. 1/1973 - State v. Manohar Singh were initiated by the SDO and after required inquiry the proceedings were dropped; the Collector by order dated 26.09.2006 came to the conclusion that once the proceedings under the new Act were initiated and dropped, there was no justification for re-opening the proceedings under the old ceiling law and, consequently, dropped the proceedings. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the State filed an appeal under Section 23(2A) of the Act of 1973 before the Board. 4. The appeal was barred by limitation and the Board after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the State had failed to make out a case of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, consequently, dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board was not justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the delay was properly explained and the same was not so huge so as to dismiss the application and, therefore, the order passed by the Board calls for interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 7. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 7. Though the Board has not dealt with the merits of the appeal and has simply dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, having examined the order passed by the Collector and the facts of the present case, as noticed hereinbefore, wherein, the proceedings under the old ceiling law were dropped by order dated 28.10.1975; where after, the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1973 were also dropped and where after the re-opening proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 pertaining to the old ceiling law were initiated, on merits of the appeal filed by the State no case for interference is made out. 8. This Court in the case of Smt. Pari Devi v. State of Rajasthan : 1984 RLW 320 observed and held as under:- "It appears that two proceedings were taken against the petitioner : one under the old Ceiling Law and the other under the New Ceiling Law. Under the New Ceiling Law, the proceeding was dropped, or, in other words, it must be held that there was no excess land with the petitioner under the new Ceiling Law. In case No. 279 of 1973 under the new Ceiling Law, it was found that transfers were bona fide and the area, after the transfer, was not surplus. This order has become final as the State Government did not challenge the order by preferring an appeal as is incumbent under the law. Thereafter, the State Government, peculiarly enough, proceeded under Section 15(2) of the new Ceiling Law by which old ceiling cases can be reopened. After the proceedings had been initiated, and culminated in favour of the petitioner under Section 15(4) of the new Ceiling Law, it is not open to the respondent to proceed again the old Ceiling Law, or, in other words, both the old Ceiling Law and the new Ceiling Law cannot occupy the same field or in the same subject matter. Admittedly, in this case, new Ceiling Law case was in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, in my opinion, the proceeding under Section 15(2) was, on the fact of it, without jurisdiction. 2. Admittedly, in this case, new Ceiling Law case was in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, in my opinion, the proceeding under Section 15(2) was, on the fact of it, without jurisdiction. 2. I, therefore, set aside all the orders, including the orders of the Board of Revenue made under Section 15 (2) of the new Ceiling Act for reopening an order passed under the old Ceiling Law. The rule is, therefore, made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs." 9. The issue as to whether the judgment in the case of Smt. Pari Devi (supra) holds the field or other two conflicting judgments of Division Bench hold the field was referred to Larger Bench and the Larger Bench in the case of Sahas Karan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2598/1989 decided on 18.04.2011 observed 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 filed in the subject matter." 10. In view of the law laid down by this Court as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is apparent that the proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 could not have been initiated by the State Government after determination of the proceedings under the Act of 1973. 11. This Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 932/2001 decided on 24.02.2015 has also taken a similar view. 12. In this view of the matter, without going into the validity of the rejection of application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the Board, as on the merits it is found that the proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 could not have been initiated by the State, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Petition Dismissed.