( 1 ) - We have heard Mr. Mehriah, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the judgment dated 19/10/1967 of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a twofold contention. The first is that the Board of Revenue did not go into the question as to whether the agricultural lands for which ceiling proceedings were initiated were ancestral property or not and without going into this question dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and his two sons viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop. The second contention is that once the ceiling case is decided under chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the old Ceiling-Law) against the assessee and has also been decided under the provisions of Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Ceiling Law) they cannot be reopened under subsection (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law.

( 2 ) WE shall presently show that none of the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel has force, but before we will state the facts in brief.

( 3 ) PROCEEDINGS under Old Ceiling Law and the Rajasthan Tenancy (Fixation of