A notice issued under repealed provisions of the law is without jurisdiction and cannot be the basis for further proceedings.

1. - This writ petition was taken up for final hearing with the consent of the learnedcounsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner's contention in this case is that although the ceiling matter in respect of the petitioner's land was decided under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Moldings Act, 1973, by the Sub-Divisioinal Officer, Sri Karanpur, on 17.6.1980 but thereafter a notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Karanpur, on 1.12.1980, under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is contended that after the repeal of the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Act. a fresh notice could not be given under those provisions on 1.12.1980.

3. In Banshidhar v. State, AIR 1977 Rajasthan 46 it was held by this Court that the proceedings which are commenced under Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act for determination of the ceiling and surplus area of the land holder and were pending when the Act of 1973 came into force, which repealed Chapter III-B of the Tenancy Act, would be governed by the old law and should be determined under that law. Thus, all cases initiated under the old law and pending before competent authorities at the time when the Act of 1973 came into force would have to be disposed of in the manner and under the provisions of the old law : but after the coming in to force of the Act of 1973, the provisions of Chapter III-B of the Act were repealed and thereafter fresh proceedings could not be initiated under Chapter III-B of the Act. In the present case notice Ex. 2 was given to the petitioner of Chapter III-B of the Act. At the time when on 1.12.1980 under the provisions this notice was issued, the provisions of Chapter III-B had already been repealed. As such the notice, which was obviously issued under the repealed law, was without jurisdiction and proceedings could not be taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of the said notice Ex.2.

4. It was contended by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the petitioner should have raised an objection in respect of the validity of the notice before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sri Karanpur. In the present case, as the notice was invalid on account of the fact that it was issued under the provisions of a repealed law and further as the writ petition has been entertained by this Court, it would not be proper to dismiss the writ petition at this stage, merely on the ground that the objection about the validity of the notice should have been raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer The notice Ex. 2 ex-facie is invalid and deserves to be quashed.

5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed Notice Ex. 2 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sri Karanpur, dated 1.12.1980 is quashed and the Sub-Divisional Officer.(Revenue) Sri Karanpur is prohibited from taking any proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the afore said notice.Writ allowed.

*******