The State Government has the power to reopen cases decided under the Old Ceiling Law under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the New Ceiling Law even if the case has been decided under both the Old Ceiling Law and the New Ceiling Law.

( 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 Ceiling on lands) Government Rules 1963 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules), were initiated by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kota against the petitioner for the acquisition of the surplus lands possessed by him. Those ceiling proceedings were dropped under order dated 29-4-75 in ceiling case No. 2182/75. It appears that the ceiling proceedings under the new Ceiling Law were also decided under order dated November 20, 75 by the learned Authorised Officer Ceiling, Kota. The State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 15 (2) of the New Ceiling Law, under its order dated 19/12/1980, after notice to the petitioner on the grounds contained, ordered the reopening of the ceiling case of the petitioner decided under the Old Ceiling Law. Thereafter, before the Additional Collector Ceiling, Kota a plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the agricultural lands in dispute were ancestral, and therefore, his two sons viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop each was entitled to a separate unit. The Additional Collector Ceiling, Kota under its order dated 22/10/1983 determined the ceiling area and the aforesaid arguments did not prevail with him. The learned Addl. Collector took the entire area situated within chambal command area. Against the aforesaid order two appeals were filed one by the petitioner it was bearing No. 311 /83 Ceiling/kota and other by his two sons Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop which was bearing Appeal No. 326 / 83 / Ceiling/kota. The learned Member of Board of Revenue allowed the appeal No. 311 / 83 / Ceiling/kota by the petitioner and set aside the impugned order of the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota and sent the case back to him with the direction to calculate the standard acres according to entries in annual register as on 1/04/1966. The appeal filed by Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop was dismissed.

( 4 ) FIRST contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Member of Board of Revenue did not consider the first objection raised by the petitioner that the lands were ancestral and as such the two sons of the petitioner viz. Prem Chand and Ram Swaroop were entitled to a separate unit in lieu of their share of the disputed lands. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Revenue Board, wherein it appears that the aforesaid submissions was not considered. He has also referred to the order of the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota wherein the Additional Collector has said that the question as to whether the agricultural lands were ancestral or not is not of importance because on the appointed day no member in the family of the petitioner has been found to be dependent, The learned counsel on being asked by us to show that on 1-4-66 the agricultural lands in dispute were ancestral lands of th