JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeal arise out of order dated 02.06.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-Meethya has been partly allowed, holding that a further extent of land of 30 standard acres is found to be within the limits to which the agriculture land could be held by the holders. 2. The facts as a revealed from the records of the cases and the orders impugned before us as also from the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are that ceiling proceedings were initiated against the khatedar/writ-petitioner-Meethya under the ceiling laws applicable in force in the State of Rajasthan under the scheme of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’). After completing the proceedings, the competent authority brought the proceedings to end vide order dated 17.11.1971. Later on, however, the State Government was satisfied that the order passed earlier was in contravention of the law which was in force at the time when the order was passed and therefore, on 01.05.1981, the State directed the Revenue Authority to reopen the case which led to reopening and passing of an order by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur on 06.11.1981. By this order, the Additional Collector, held that out of 92.87 standard acres of land recorded in the name of the holder-Meethya, 62.87 standard acres is declared excess and an order of vesting was passed. This order was challenged, though unsuccessfully, by the holder before the Board of Revenue. Vider order dated 18.01.1985, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal. This led to filing of the writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition came to be partly allowed by learned Single Judge by the order which is impugned in this appeal. 3. The State as well as writ petitioner both have preferred appeals. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge and all the Revenue Authorities did not decide a specific objection to the very maintainability of the proceedings, reopening of the proceedings. He would submit that the proceedings for declaring excess agriculture holdings were earlier initiated under the repealed laws which were finally dropped on 17.11.1971. He would submit that the proceedings for declaring excess agriculture holdings were earlier initiated under the repealed laws which were finally dropped on 17.11.1971. After enactment of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act of 1973’), though Section 15 allowed reopening, the power to reopen was limited to three years and thereafter by way an amendment in 1978, upto seven years. The State Government directed reopening of the case on 01.08.1985 far beyond the period of seven years within which, the earlier proceedings could be reopened. This aspect was not examined even though specifically raised at all stages of proceedings. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, learned counsel would submit that the issue of jurisdiction ought to have been specifically raised by the writ petitioner. He would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not show that issue regarding jurisdiction was pressed into service by the respondent-writ petitioner, therefore, at this stage, in appeal, this issue cannot not be allowed to be raised. 5. The next submission is that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the objections initially taken by holder in proceedings before the Additional Collector were not with regard to sons being dependent members of the family but the entire case was built up on the plea of partition. The Additional Collector as well as Board of Revenue as also learned Single Judge all have held that the holder of the land failed to establish a case of partition. Therefore, the new plea which was taken before the Writ Court for the first time was liable to be rejected. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused records of the case including the records of the writ petition. 7. We find that after the notice was issued to the writ petitioner/agricultural land holder, he had filed a specific objection on 12.06.1981 before the Additional Collector. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused records of the case including the records of the writ petition. 7. We find that after the notice was issued to the writ petitioner/agricultural land holder, he had filed a specific objection on 12.06.1981 before the Additional Collector. That objection (Annexure-6 of the writ petition) clearly stated as below: ^^9- ;g fd flfyax ,DV ds vuqlkj flfyax izdj.k rhu lky ds vUnj gh iqu% vksfiu fd;k tk ldrk gS] ;g izdj.k ,l-Mh-vks- xaxkiqj ls fnukad 17-11-1971 dks QSly fd;k FkkA blds rhu lky ds vUnj ;kfu 17-11-1974 rd gh jh&vksfiu fd;k tk ldrk gS] blds ckn dh vof/k esa ugha bl dkj.k ls Hkh mDr izdj.k iqu% vksfiu u fd;k tkosA nQk 4 U;w flfyax ,DV jsVfoFk lSDlu 15 ;g E;kn 3 lky gSA** 8. Apparently, a specific objection to the reopening was taken by specific reference to the provision contained in Section 15 read with Section 4 of the New Ceiling Act, 1973 wherein it was stated that the limitation for reopening is three years. 9. However, the aforesaid objection was not taken into consideration by the Additional Collector in its order which is clear from order dated 12.06.1981. The appellant-writ petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also did not advert to this specific objection regarding maintainability of the proceedings of reopening under the provisions of the Act of 1973. 10. When the writ petitioner filed writ petition, a specific ground was raised in the writ petition as below: “6. That the order of the State Govt. re-opening the Ceiling case of the Petitioner in the Year 1981 is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. The Ceiling case of the Petitioner was decided by the S.D.O. in the Year 1971 and the State Govt. had power to re-open the case only within 3 Years of the final order passed by the S.D.O. As such all proceedings adopted by the Additional Collector in pursuance of the order of the State Govt. are illegal, without jurisdiction and void.” 11. It would thus be seen that right from the beginning, writ petitioner had been raising specific objection with regard to maintainability of the reopening proceedings on the ground that it was time barred. We find that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to this aspect at all. are illegal, without jurisdiction and void.” 11. It would thus be seen that right from the beginning, writ petitioner had been raising specific objection with regard to maintainability of the reopening proceedings on the ground that it was time barred. We find that the learned Single Judge has not adverted to this aspect at all. The case has turned on its own merits without examining as to whether the reopening was permissible under the law in view of specific bar created under Section 15(2) which relates to reopening of ceiling cases drawn and concluded under the repealed law before enactment of the Ceiling Act of 1973. 12. Prior to enactment of the Act of 1973, ceiling laws with regard to ceiling on holding of agriculture land were provided in Clause 6A of Section 5 and Chapter IIIB of the Act of 1955. Admittedly, earlier ceiling proceedings were drawn against the holder/writ petitioner under old Act. It is also not in dispute that those proceedings were brought to their conclusion vide order dated 17.11.1971. 13. After enactment of the Act of 1978 in the State of Rajasthan, the earlier provisions and the scheme of ceiling laws as contained in the Act of 1955 were repealed which is clear from the repeal Clause as below: "40. Repeal and savings. -(1) Except as provided in second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 4 and in sub-section (2) of section 15 of this Act, the provisions of clause (6A) of section 5 and Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955) are hereby repealed except in the Rajasthan Canal Project area wherein such provisions shall stand repealed on the date on which this Act comes into force in that area. (2) The Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Ordinance, 1973 (Rajasthan Ordinance 1 of 1973) is hereby repealed. (3) Notwithstanding the repeal of the said Ordinance under sub-section (2), anything done or any action taken or any rules made under the said Ordinance shall be deemed to have been done, taken or made under this Act, and section 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 8 of 1955) shall apply to such repeal and re-enactment." 14. The legislature in its wisdom, however, provided for reopening of cases under the New Act. The legislature in its wisdom, however, provided for reopening of cases under the New Act. For this purpose, a specific provision was made under Section 15 under the New Act of 1973, which being relevant is expected herein below: “15. Power to re-open cases-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision of this Act, if the State Government at any time within three years of the publication of the final statement under Section 13, is satisfied that, the ceiling area in relation to a person has been determined in contravention of the provisions of this Act, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open a decided case and enquire into it and to determine the ceiling area and the surplus area afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 40, if the State Government, at any time within three years of the commencement of this Act, is satisfied that the ceiling area in relation to a person as fixed under the law repealed by the said section has been determined in contravention of the provisions of such repealed law, it may direct any officer subordinate to it, to re-open a decided case and enquire into it and to determine the ceiling area and the surplus are afresh in accordance with the provisions of such repealed law.” 15. While sub-section (1) and Section 15 provided reopening of ceiling cases where the orders were passed by drawing proceedings under the New Act of 1973, sub-section (2) specifically empowered the authorities to reopen ceiling cases which were drawn and closed under the Old Act i.e. the Tenancy Act, 1955. sub-section (2), however, provided a limitation of three years from the date of commencement of the New Act of 1973. 16. Section 15 was, later on, substituted by a new provision vide Section 2 of the Act No.6 of 1978 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extra Part 4 (ka) dated 08.04.1978. The new provision reads as below: "15. sub-section (2), however, provided a limitation of three years from the date of commencement of the New Act of 1973. 16. Section 15 was, later on, substituted by a new provision vide Section 2 of the Act No.6 of 1978 published in Rajasthan Gazette Extra Part 4 (ka) dated 08.04.1978. The new provision reads as below: "15. 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 re-opened, it may direct any officer subordinate to it to re-open 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: 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 order 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 subsection (2) shall be directed to be re-opened on account of the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which has since come to its notice or due to some mistake or apparent on the face of the record.] [(3) Where any person challenges the direction issued by the State Government to re-open a decided matter under sub-Section (1) or under sub-Section (2) in any court and such direction is quashed by the court on account of any procedural defect or on a technical ground or on the ground that the authority who issued the directions had no jurisdiction, the period during which the proceedings remained pending in the court shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation provided by second proviso to sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) for the purpose of making fresh direction for re-opening decided matters under the said sub-Sections.]” 17. Under the substituted provision vide amendment, provisos were added. The second proviso, importantly provided that no notice or reopening shall be issued after the expiry of seven years from the date of the final order sought to be reopened or after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later. The provision clearly envisaged that though the power to reopen ceiling cases which were earlier closed under the old laws, was reserved under the New Act, it was circumscribed by time limit under the unamended as well as amended provisions. Earlier the limitation provided was three years from the date of commencement of the New Act, it was, later on, increased to seven years from the date of the final order sought to be reopened or after the expiry of 30th day of June of 1979, whichever is later. In the present case, the order was passed under the Old Act on 17.11.1971. Even, if seven years are counted from the date the order sought to be reopened was passed, it would come to 17.11.1978. However, under the proviso such reopening could be done till 30th day of June of 1979. Therefore, in any case, the authority could reopen the case upto 30th June, 1979. In any case, no reopening was permissible after 30th June, 1979. 18. In the present case, the State Government passed an order as late as on 01.05.1981 reopening the case of ceiling which culminated in passing of order by the Additional Collector on 12.06.1981 declaring excess land. 19. In view of the above considerations, we have no hesitation to conclude that the very reopening of the ceiling proceedings was beyond the period of limitation provided under the unamended as well as amended provision of Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973. 20. In view of the above conclusion, we hold that the very reopening of the proceedings was without jurisdiction and therefore, all the proceedings thereafter, declaring land in excess are null and void ab initio. 21. The orders passed by the Additional Collector, Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge are set aside. 22. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, Appeal of the Legal Representatives of the holder of land (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.968/2000) is allowed and State’s appeal (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.997/2006) is dismissed. No order as to costs.