JUDGMENT :

1. These two appeal arise out of order dated 02.06.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-Meethya has been partly allowed, holding that a further extent of land of 30 standard acres is found to be within the limits to which the agriculture land could be held by the holders.

2. The facts as a revealed from the records of the cases and the orders impugned before us as also from the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities are that ceiling proceedings were initiated against the khatedar/writ-petitioner-Meethya under the ceiling laws applicable in force in the State of Rajasthan under the scheme of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act of 1955’). After completing the proceedings, the competent authority brought the proceedings to end vide order dated 17.11.1971. Later on, however, the State Government was satisfied that the order passed earlier was in contravention of the law which was in force at the time when the order was passed and therefore, on 01.05.1981, the State directed the Revenue Authority to reopen the case which led to reopening and passing of an order by the Additional Collector, Sawaimadhopur on 06.11.1981. By this order, the Additional Collector, held that out of 92.87 standard acres of land recorded in the name of the holder-Meethya, 62.87 standard acres is declared excess and an order of vesting was passed. This order was challenged, though unsuccessfully, by the holder before the Board of Revenue. Vider order dated 18.01.1985, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal. This led to filing of the writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition came to be partly allowed by learned Single Judge by the order which is impugned in this appeal.

3. The State as well as writ petitioner both have preferred appeals. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge and all the Revenue Authorities did not decide a specific objection to the very maintainability of the proceedings, reopening of the proceedings. He would submit that the proceedings for declaring excess agriculture holdings were earlier initiated under the repealed laws which were finally dropped on 17.11.1971. After enactment of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the Act of 1973’), though Section 15 allowed reopening, the power to reopen was limited to three years and thereafter by way an amendment in 1978, upto seven years. The State Government directed reopening of the case on 01.08.1985 far beyond the period of seven years within which, the earlier proceedings could be reopened. This aspect was not examined even though specifically raised at all stages of proceedings.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, learned counsel would submit that the issue of jurisdiction ought to have been specifically raised by the writ petitioner. He would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not show that issue regarding jurisdiction was pressed into service by the respondent-writ petitioner, therefore, at this stage, in appeal, this issue cannot not be allowed to be raised.

5. The next submission is that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that the objections initially taken by holder in proceedings before the Additional Collector were not with regard to sons being dependent members of the family but the entire case was built up on the plea of partition. The Additional Collector as well as Board of Revenue as also learned Single Judge all have held that the holder of the land failed to establish a case of partition. Therefore, the new plea which was taken before the Writ Court for the first time was liable to be rejected.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused records of the case including the records of the writ petition.

7. We find that after the notice was issued to the writ petitioner/ag