IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Relevant dates for determination of issue of limitation is date of order sought to be reopened and date of issuance of show-cause notice.
(2) For a gift to be valid, it must be gratuitous in nature and must be made voluntarily. Such giving away implies complete dispossession of ownership in property by donor. Acceptance of a gift by donee can be done anytime during lifetime of donor.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2008, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Raj as than at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 264 of 1999 (Writ) wherein the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and upheld the order dated 02.07.1990 passed by the Board of Revenue while setting aside the order dated 02.04.1997 of the Single Judge.

2. The facts underlying the appeal are as follows: Daulat Singh (since deceased and now represented through his legal representatives and who shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience be referred to as the appellant) was owner of 254.2 Bighas of land. On 19.12.1963, he gifted away 127.1 Bighas of land to his son, Narpat Singh. After the said transfer, the appellant was left with 17.25 standard acres of land, which was below the prescribed limit under the Ceiling Act.

3. Although, a proceeding was initiated under the ceiling law, the same was dropped on 15.04.1972 by the Court of Deputy Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali, Rajasthan. While dropping the proceedings, the Court observed that, the amendment of Section 30DD of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter "Tenancy Act of 1955") was effective from 31.12.1969, and since the gift deed was executed before the aforesaid amendment, the aforesaid transfer was valid.

4. However, by notice dated 15.03.1982, the Revenue Ceiling Department re-opened the case of the appellant. The Revenue Ceiling Department while issuing the aforesaid notice stated that the earlier order dated 15.04.1972, passed by the Court of Deputy Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali was rendered without investigating whether the land transfers are recognizable as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Tenancy Act of 1955. The same being in contravention of the provisions, needs to be reopened.

5. The Court of Additional District Collector, Pali vide order dated 28.10.1988, declared that the mutation of the land done in favour of the son of the appellant was invalid as there was no acceptance of the gift. It was declared therein that the appellant was holding 11 standard acres of extra land over and above the ceiling limit. The Collector, therefore, directed the appellant to handover vacant possession of the aforesaid 11 standard acres of extra land to the Tahsildar, Pali.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Vide order dated 02.07.1990, the Board of Revenue, modified the earlier order dated 28.10.1988, and upon re-calculation held that the appellant is holding 4.5 standard acres of land in excess of the ceiling limit.

7. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 before the High Court. Vide order dated 02.04.1997, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant. The Court held that the case was beyond the purview of Section 6 of The Raj as than Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter "Ceiling Act of 1973") because the land was transferred by way of gift before 26.09.1970. It was further held that the aforesaid transfer of land, by the appellant in favour of his son by virtue of a registered gift deed, being bonafide, was valid in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge, therefore held that there is no surplus land which is available with the appellant which can be resumed.

8. Thereafter, the respondents preferred an appeal against the above order before the Division Bench, which allowed the appeal holding that the gift deed was invalid as the son of the appellant was unaware about the same. The Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 25.04.2008, held that the learned Single Judge passed the judgment in ignorance of the provisions of Section 30C and 30D of the Tenancy Act of 1955. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order passed by the Single Judge Bench