Authorities have jurisdiction under section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 to reopen a case and recalculate the ceiling area if a wrong return has been filed or if the ceiling area has been wrongly calculated.

1. :- The petitioner is aggrieved against the orders passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan under the Land Ceiling Department dated 25.5.1981, Additional Collector, Kota dated 10.6.1983 and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 5.6.1985 and 26.8.1987 with the prayer that all these orders be set aside so far it relates to the fixation of the ceiling area of the petitioner under the Ceiling Act.

2. It is the submission of the petitioner that the initial proceedings were initiated by the SDO, Ramganj Mandi under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan tenancy Act, 1955 and the proceedings were dropped on 12.8.1971, but after the new Act having come into being i.e. Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (here-in-after referred to as the New Ceiling Act), it is stated that the case of the petitioner was reconsidered when the petitioner was asked by the SDO, Baran to furnish a return under section 10 of the New Ceiling Act. The case was subsequently transferred to the SDO, Kota who had decided the matter on 17.4.1976 holding therein that the petitioner was having a khatedari 209 Bighas 13 Biswas of land equivalent to 83.86 ordinary acres. The order was passed to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to retain 48 ordinary acres of land and the remaining area of 35.86 ordinary acres of land was declared surplus vide order Annexure-2. The appeal filed against the order Annexure-2 was dismissed vide Annexure-3 on 2.7.1976.

3. Subsequent to the order Annexures 2 and 3, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan issued notice to the petitioner to the effect that the land had been wrongly calculated in regard to actual holding of land and also in regard to the family members of the petitioner and vide order dated 25.5.1981, copy of which is attached as Annexure-4 and after hearing the petitioner an order was passed for reopening the surplus area of the case of the petitioner and the matter was referred to the Additional Collector, Baran who on receipt of such orders from the Government decided the case afresh on 10.6. 1983 holding that the actual holding of the petitioner was 311 Bighas and 13 Biswas of land and not 209 Bighas and 13 Biswas and that the petitioner had three members in the family on the appointed date and, therefore, after allowing the petitioner the permissible area of 30 standard acres of land and the remaining 27 acres of land was declared as surplus vide Annexure-5.

4. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order Annexure-5 was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner also filed the review application before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed by respective orders Annexures-6 and 7.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the case had been decided vide Annexure-2 which purported to be under the New Act and appeal filed by him against Annexure-2 was also dismissed vide Annexure-3 and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity or jurisdiction with the respondents to have reopened the matter under section 15(2) of the New Act and for this proposition the petitioner relies on number of authorities.

6. The proposition as has been advanced by the petitioner no doubt on the face of it seems to be attractive and appealable but in the present case and as per the circumstances and the facts mentioned in the impugned orders dated 25.5.1981 (Annexure-4) and dated 10.6.1983 and 5.6.1985 (Annexures 5 and 6), it goes without saying that the petitioner had definitely declared his holding to be 209 Bighas 13 Biswa, but he had very cleverly not mentioned the holding held by him of which he had a share to the extent of one half, i.e. out of 64 Bighas 14 Biswas, the petitioner was share holder to the extent of half of this area measuring 32 Bigha 7 Biswa, details of which had been mentioned in the order Annexure-5. Thus, the courts below had held that the petitioner was actually holding 311 Bigha 13 Biswa and in such circumstances,