Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the State aggrieved against the judgment dated 5/7/2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 has been allowed and the order passed by the Addl. Collector (Administration), Hanumangarh dated 18/3/2000 has been set aside.

2. Proceedings under Chapter - III B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (old ceiling law) being case No.647/71 were initiated against the respondent no.1 and by order dated 29/12/1971, the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh came to the conclusion that the land held by the respondent no.1 was not affected by the ceiling law and consequently dropped the proceedings. Where after, it appears that after coming into force of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (`the Act of 1973') another proceeding being Ceiling Case No.818/75 was initiated by the authorised officer against the respondent No.1 and by order dated 25/10/1975 the authorised officer came to the conclusion that the land held by the respondent no.1 was less than the ceiling limit and consequently again dropped the proceedings.

3. It appears that a notice under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 dated 21/4/1979 was issued to the respondent no.1 seeking to reopen the ceiling proceedings, which culminated in the order passed on 29/12/1971 in case no. 647/71. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Secretary by his order dated 12/5/1982 ordered for referring the matter to the Additional Collector for proceedings. The Additional Collector by his order dated 18/3/2000, came to the conclusion that the adoption of Saheb Ram relied on by the respondent no.1 was of the year 1966 i.e. after the old ceiling law came into force and, therefore, the same was of no consequence and found that the respondent no.1 was holding 24.01 Bigha land in excess of the ceiling area and ordered for proceedings.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.1 approached the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its judgment dated 5/7/2002 came to the conclusion that adoption of Saheb Ram on 25/10/1965 was proved on record, which was prior to the cut off date and that the proceedings initiated on 12/5/1980 under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 were barred by limitation and consequently allowed the appeal.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings were barred by limitation inasmuch as the notice was admittedly issued on 21/4/1979, which was before the cut off date i.e. 30/6/1979 and, therefore, the order cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that it was the consistent case of the respondents that the adoption of Saheb Ram took place in the year 1966, however, such plea was changed and date 25/10/1965 was adopted, which is contrary to the record and, therefore, on both the counts the order passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, though conceded on the aspect of limitation, submitted that the finding regarding adoption is supported by documentary and oral evidence of relevant parties and, therefore, the said finding of the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Though the respondent no.1 has not raised the issue of jurisdiction before any of the authorities below, from the material available on record and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court, the proceedings initiated by the petitioner State are ex facie without jurisdiction.

9. As noticed hereinbefore, the proceedings under Chapter III-B of the old Ceiling Law were initiated against the respondent, which culminated in the order dated 29/12/1971 (Annex.1) and after the Act of 1973 came into force, again proceedings were initiated against the respondent no.1, wherein, again order dated