ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition is directed against the judgments dated 6.3.1996 passed by the Additional Collector (Administration), Sriganganagar and 16.11.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby the Additional Collector found the petitioners in possession of 122 Bigha 5 Biswa land in excess of ceiling limit and the Board dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners, respectively. 2. The petitioners are legal representatives of Gurdyal Singh. Ceiling Proceedings against Gurdyal Singh and petitioners No.2 & 4 were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('Old Ceiling Law'); return was filed on 28.1.1971 and the proceedings were dropped in the year 1972 by the SDO, Raisinghnagar. 3. The State filed appeal against the order passed by the SDO, Raisinghnagar before the Revenue Appellate Authority ('RAA'), who set-aside the order passed by the SDO by its order dated 31.12.1983; against the said order petitioners filed revision petition before the Board, which partly allowed the revision petition by its order dated 6.7.1994 (Annex.2), whereby it was held that the land ad measuring 49 Bigha 4 Biswa, was in excess of ceiling limit and was to be acquired from the petitioners. 4. In the meanwhile, the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 ('New Ceiling Act/'the Act') was promulgated wherein the authorised officer issued notice under Section 11 of the Act to the petitioners and by its order dated 2.7.1975 (Annex.3), dropped the proceedings holding that the petitioners were not in possession of land in excess of the ceiling limit. 5. The order dated 2.7.1975 was ordered to be reopened by the State Government vide order dated 1.8.1980. Where after, by order dated 11.4.1984, the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar came to the conclusion that the petitioners were in possession of land ad measuring 134 Bigha 2 Biswa in excess of the ceiling area. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the Board. The Board by its order dated 28.7.1989 allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal before the Board. The Board by its order dated 28.7.1989 allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar. It was inter-alia observed and directed in the order dated 28.7.1989 as under :- ^^4- bl ckcr dksbZ nks jk; ugha gS fd u;s lhfyax dkuwu dh /kkjk 4@1 ds f}rh; ijUrqd ds vuqlkj ,lsles.V djus ds fy, gedks iqjkus lhfyax dkuwu ds izko/kkuksa dk gh vuqlj.k djuk gksxkA nsf[k;s 1986 & vkj0vkj0Mh0&172 iSjk 2 rglhynkj us tks fjiksVZ fnukad 31-03-1981 dks Hksth gS mlls bl ckcr irk ugha pyrk fd vihykaV ds ikl 25-02-1950 o 01-04-1966 dks fdruh tehu Fkh vkSj ml oDr mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh la[;k fdruh Fkh vkSj bl njE;ku dksbZ gLrkUrj.k fd;k ;k ugha vkSj ;fn fd;k rks oks ekU;rk nsus ;ksX; gS ;k ugha vr% ;g dsl esjh jk; esa iqu% tkWap pkgrk gSA 5- QyLo:i ;g vihy va'kr% Lohdkj dh tkrh gS vkSj vihyk/khu vkns'k fnukad 11-04-1984 dks fujLr djrs gq, dsl dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk fjek.M fd;k tkrk gS fd fo}ku vfrfjDr ftyk/kh'k bl dsl esa u;s lhfyax dkuwu dh /kkjk 4@1 ds f}rh; ijUrqd dh jks'kuh esa iqjkus lhfyax dkuwu ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ijh{k.k dj] nksuksa i{kksa dks lk{; ,oa lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, fof/kd fuLrkj.k djsaA** 7. On remand, the Additional Collector by its order dated 6.3.1996 determined that the petitioners were in possession of 122 Bigha 5 Biswa land in excess of the ceiling limit. 8. The petitioners again filed an appeal before the Board and the Board by its impugned judgment dated 16.11.1999 (Annex.7), dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. It was inter-alia held by the Board as under:- "6. After thoughtful examination of the submission by the rival parties I am of the view that the Board himself while deciding the appeal under the New Act in its order dated 28.7.1989 held that exercise under section 4(1) proviso-2 can be made, therefore, since the assessee has excess land under the Old Ceiling Law i.e. 49.4 Bighas were not acquired so far. Therefore, objection raised by the Advocate for the appellants to the extent that 49.4 Bighas should only deemed to be excess land does not hold good because that excess land has not been acquired so far. Therefore, objection raised by the Advocate for the appellants to the extent that 49.4 Bighas should only deemed to be excess land does not hold good because that excess land has not been acquired so far. Thus, the judgment passed by the lower court after exercising as per provisions of section 4(1) proviso-2 the excess land to be with the appellant is 122.5 Bighas seems to be legal and in accordance with law. 7. Under these circumstances appeal fails and impugned judgment is maintained. Order of the Board dated 28.7.1989 can not be alter on this point, therefore, the objection raised by the appellant's Advocate that only 49.4 Bighas should be acquired and not as per impugned order has got no legs to stand by the impugned judgment of the Board dated 6.3.96 is upheld." 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Collector and the Board fell in error in determining the land in possession of the petitioners in excess of the ceiling limit and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that once the determination under the Old Ceiling Law had become final by passing of the order dated 6.7.1994 (Annex.2) by the Board, which was not challenged by any of the parties, under second proviso to Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act, the impugned order could not have been passed. 10. Further submissions were made that the Board has wrongly emphasized on provisions of Second proviso to Section 4 of the New Ceiling Act, which has no application to the facts of the present case and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside. 11. Reliance was placed on judgment in Mrs. Sumitra Kaur v. Authorised Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Sri Ganganagar & Ors. : 1977 WLN 505. 12. Further submissions were made that the emphasis of the Board in dismissing the appeal has been that the petitioners had not surrendered the land ad measuring 49 Bigha 4 Biswa in terms of the direction dated 6.7.1994, which aspect had no implication in so far as the decision on the petitioners' appeal was concerned and factually, now the petitioners have surrendered the land ad measuring 49 Bigha 4 Biswa on 24.4.2000. It was prayed that the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as the Board be set-aside. 13. It was prayed that the orders passed by the Additional Collector as well as the Board be set-aside. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it was submitted that the order passed by the Additional Collector is in consonance with the remand order passed by the Board dated 28.7.1989 and the same, therefore, cannot be objected to by the petitioners and as the order passed by the Additional Collector is factually correct, the same does not call for any interference. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. It is not in dispute that the proceedings against the father of the petitioners i.e. Gurdyal Singh under the Old Ceiling Law were dropped and the same came to be challenged by filing appeal before the RAA and against the order passed by the RAA, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Board, which by its order dated 6.7.1994 held that the petitioners were in possession of 49 Bigha 4 Biswa land in excess of the ceiling limit, the said order became final in so far as the Old Ceiling Law was concerned. 16. From the material on record, it appears that under the New Ceiling Act notice was issued under Section 11 to the petitioners and a response thereto was filed by the petitioners. Where after, by order dated 2.7.1975, the authorised officer (SDO) dropped the proceedings under the New Ceiling Act. Thereafter, under Section 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act, the order dated 1.8.1980 was passed by the State Government for reopening the ceiling proceedings as concluded by order dated 2.7.1975. The Additional Collector where after on 11.4.1984, determined that the land ad measuring 134 Bigha 2 Biswa was in excess of the ceiling limit. Against the said order, when the appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Board, the Board as quoted herein-before directed that the determination was required to be made by the Additional Collector with reference to cut off date as on 1.4.1966 and keeping in view the provisions of second proviso to Section 4(1) of the New Ceiling Act. 17. Against the said order, when the appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Board, the Board as quoted herein-before directed that the determination was required to be made by the Additional Collector with reference to cut off date as on 1.4.1966 and keeping in view the provisions of second proviso to Section 4(1) of the New Ceiling Act. 17. Though, apparently, the order dated 28.7.1989 directing examination of the matter with respect to the cut off date as 1.4.1966 was incorrect, inasmuch as, once the proceedings were initiated under the New Ceiling Act by issuing notice under Section 11, the relevant cut off date was 1.1.1973 and the direction to determine the proceedings in relation to the cut off date as 1.4.1966 was essentially seeking determination in relation to the Old Ceiling Law. However, the order dated 27.8.1989 of the Board was not questioned by the State and the same became final. As already noticed herein-before, in so far as the determination in terms of the Old Ceiling Law was concerned, the proceedings were already pending and the same became final by order dated 6.7.1994 passed by the Board holding the petitioners in possession of 49 Bigha 4 Biswa land in excess of the ceiling limit. 18. In terms of the remand order dated 28.7.1989, the Additional Collector by its order dated 6.3.1996 (Annex.6) in relation to the cut off date as 1.4.1966 determined the land in excess of Ceiling Act and held the petitioners in possession of 122 Bigha 5 Biswa land in excess. The said determination made by the Additional Collector with respect to the cut off date as 1.4.1966 was essentially converting the proceedings before it instead of under Section 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act into proceedings under Section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act. The said provision in so far as relevant in the present case reads as under:- "15. Power to reopen cases. - (1) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... The said provision in so far as relevant in the present case reads as under:- "15. Power to reopen cases. - (1) ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... (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: 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 the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of seven years from the date of the final orders sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later. Provided that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in sub-section (1) or in sub-section (2) shall be directed to be re-opened on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was since come to the notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." 19. A bare look at the third proviso to section 15(2) of the New Ceiling Act would reveal that no final order passed by the Board in the matter referred to in sub-section (1) or in sub-section (2) can be re-opened on account of discovery of new and important matters in evidence, which has come to the notice or on error apparent on the face of record. 20. 20. Once the order dated 6.7.1994 pertaining to the Old Ceiling Law had come to become final, the order dated 6.3.1996 passed by the Additional Collector subsequent to the order dated 6.7.1994 with respect to the cut off date as 1.4.1966 could not have been passed as the order passed had already become final and the same was barred under third proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act. 21. When the matter was taken up to the Board and submissions were made based on the Old Ceiling Law, the arguments were made that the order passed under the Old Ceiling Law had not been complied with regarding surrender of excess land and the Board based on the said submission (as quoted herein-before) simply observed that the order seems to be legal and in accordance with law. 22. The mere fact that under the Old Ceiling Law, the land had not been surrendered/the direction of the Board had not been complied with cannot be a reason to sustain the finding of the Additional Collector. Additionally, now it has come on record that the petitioners have surrendered the excess land on 24.4.2000. 23. So far as the observations made based on the provisions of second proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act are concerned, the same have no implication, inasmuch as, the said provision simply provides that in case of determination under the New Ceiling Act, the assessee is entitled to hold more land then what he was entitled to hold under the Old Ceiling Law, he would only be entitled to hold land under the Old Ceiling Law, which provision has no application to the present case and fresh determination under the Old Ceiling Law is not required to be made, which had become final. 24. In view of the above discussion, as the Additional Collector has determined the excess land apparently under the Old Ceiling Law with respect to the cut off date as 1.4.1966, which could not have done once the order under the Old Ceiling Law had become final by order dated 6.7.1994 passed by the Board (Annex.-2), the order dated 6.3.1996 passed by the Additional Collector as upheld by the Board cannot be sustained. 25. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The orders dated 6.3.1996 (Annex.6) and 16.11.1999 (Annex.7) are quashed and set-aside. No order as to costs.