Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 892 (RAJ)

Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-21

AJIT SINGH, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ajit Singh, J. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.9.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has dismissed appellant's writ petition no. 2762/1987. 2. The appellant is a landlord. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramganj Mandi initiated proceedings under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the appellant. The proceedings were, however, dropped on 12.8.1971. But later, when the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short 'the New Ceiling Act) came into force, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran, reconsidered the case of appellant and asked him to furnish a return under Section 10. The case was subsequently transferred to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Kota, who vide order dated 17.4.1976 held that appellant was having khatedari over 209 bigha 13 biswa of land, equivalent to 83.86 ordinary acre. The Sub- Divisional Officer also held that appellant was entitled to retain 48 ordinary acre of land and declared the remaining 35.86 ordinary acre as surplus. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 2.7.1976. 3. Subsequent to the passing of orders dated 17.4.1976 and 2.7.1976, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan issued notice to the appellant to the effect that there has been wrong calculation in regard to actual holding of land and also in regard to his family members. The Deputy Secretary then, after hearing the appellant, vide order dated 25.5.1981 directed for reopening of his case and referred the matter to the Addl. Collector, Baran. And in compliance of the order dated 25.5.1981, the Addl. Collector, Baran, decided the case afresh and vide order dated 10.6.1983 held that actual holding of the appellant was 311 bigha 13 biswa of land and not 209 bigha and 13 biswa, as was held earlier. He also, having regard to the three members in the family of the appellant on the appointed day, held that appellant was entitled to retain 30 standard acre of land and declared remaining 27 acre of land as surplus. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.1987. Undeterred, the appellant filed writ petition no.2762/1987, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.1987. Undeterred, the appellant filed writ petition no.2762/1987, which the learned Single Judge has dismissed by the impugned order. 4. It is mainly argued on behalf of the appellant that once his case was dropped under the Old Ceiling Act or under the New Ceiling Act, the authorities had no jurisdiction to reopen the same. The learned Addl. Advocate General in reply submitted that Section 15 of the New Ceiling Act confers ample powers on the authority to reopen cases. 5. The relevant extract of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Act reads as under :- Power to reopen cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise is satisfied that any final order passed in any matter arising under this Act is in contravention of the provision of this Act and such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be reopened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to reopen such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provided that no such direction shall be issued unless a notice to show cause against the proposed action has been served upon the person concerned: Provided further that no notice referred to in foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of five years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of the 30th day of June 1979, whichever is later. (2) Without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955), if the State Government, after calling for the record or otherwise, is satisfied that any final orders passed in any matter arising under the provisions repealed by section 40, is in contravention of such repealed provisions and that such order is prejudicial to the State Government or that on account of the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which has since come to its notice, such order is required to be re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open such decided matter and to decide it afresh in accordance with such repealed provisions: 6. A bare perusal of the above quoted Section 15(1) and (2) makes it clear that the State Government has sufficient powers to reopen a case if it is satisfied that the final order passed, whether under Old Act or the New Act, is prejudicial to the State Government. Thus, we totally disagree with the appellant that the State Government could not have reopened his case. 7. The appellant was found to have made in a single day i.e. 5.4.1964, five unrecognised sham transfers of his land to different persons on a stamp paper of Rs.99/- to illegally save his holding. The record also reveals that appellant declared his holding to be 209 bigha 13 biswa and he cleverly did not mention that he was actually owning 311 bigha and 13 biswa of land, which was discovered later by the authorities. The appellant, thus committed fraud with the Government, and on its discovery his case was rightly reopened. We, therefore, find no illegality in the different orders passed by the authorities, as well in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.