IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
NUPUR BHATI, J.
State of Rajasthan - Petitioner
Versus
Legal Representatives of Vishan Singh and others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2686 of 2007
Decided On : 11-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final disposition of the writ petition. (Para 1 , 16 , 17) |
| 2. procedural history of ceiling proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. impact of judicial precedence on ceiling determination. (Para 6 , 10 , 15) |
| 4. petitioner's arguments against the board's order. (Para 7) |
| 5. gift deed validity in context of ceiling law. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. respondents' counterarguments regarding ceiling laws. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
(Nupur Bhati, J.)
The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
"1. The impugned judgment dated 02.09.2003 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Board of Revenue in Appeal No.32/89/Appeal/Ceiling/Pali may kindly be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences;
2. The appeal preferred by the respondents before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer may kindly ordered to be dismissed with all its natural consequences;
3. Any other relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
The ceiling proceedings under the old ceiling law, were initiated against the respondent Shri Vishan Singh (since deceased) in the case bearing No.241/70, which came to be decided by the judgment dated 19.12.1970, wherein, the land was not found to be in excess of permitted land in favour of respondents. Vide order dated 09.08.1979, ceiling proceedings were ordered to be reopened by the Government of Rajasthan under the new ceiling law.
3. The Additional Collector, Pali, vide its judgment dated 13.01.1983, found, that the land was in excess of the standard limit and 39.25 big has of land was ordered to be resumed in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned Board of revenue which was rejected by the judgment dated 27.03.1989 to which, the respondents preferred a writ petition, which was allowed vide order dated 05.05.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the matter afresh.
4. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide its judgment dated 02.09.2003, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the Additional Collector, Pali by stating that the assessee Late Shri Vishan Singh was not holding excess land on the said date.
5. Being aggrieved of the order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure- 4), passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
6. Shri R.D. Bhadu, learned counsel representing the petitioner- State, submitted that:-
(a) The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, has passed the order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure-4) in an invalid, erroneous and in a lackadaisical manner and so also, the said order is contrary to the well settled principle of law.
(b) The Board of Revenue, Ajmer, has committed a grave error by not appreciating the facts correctly for determination of the ceiling area. The computation of the land in question for the purpose of the ceiling is required to be made in both; under the New Ceiling Act as well as under the Old Ceiling Act and thereafter, it can be found as to whether, the ceiling area determined under the New Ceiling Act, exceeds the ceiling area under the Old Ceiling Act or not, and in the absence of such computation under both the Act, the matter could not have been disposed of.
7. He draws the attention of this Court towards the main ground of the writ petition and the contentions which were put before the Revenue Board, which are as follows:-
"Whether the land transferred by assessee Vishan Singh in favour of minor sons and daughters by gift deed dated 23.06.1959, would be a valid transfer as per the Section 30DD and whether the transferee are required to have attained age of majority at the date of gift deed executed in their favour i.e. 23.06.1959 or attaining majority at the cut-off date provided under Section 30 DD i.e. 01.12.1969 would be valid?"
AI
Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court did not have valid or sufficient grounds for rejecting the revised choice indicated by the petitioner because the choice can be revised till such time his....
The authorities must provide reasoned judgments, adhering to statutory definitions of land classification to ensure fair judicial processes in surplus determinations.
The court held that valid sale deeds executed before the appointed date under the Ceiling Act must be considered, and notices issued post-death of the tenure holder are invalid.
Notice to tenure holder - Limitation - Ceiling area and surplus area - If a land has come to be held by a tenure holder under Section 29, Prescribed Authority shall proceed to determine ceiling area ....
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act does not permit retroactive scrutiny of land transfers pre-dating statutory cut-off; failure to follow judicial precedents constitutes a breach of natural j....
The court affirmed that changes in the U.P. Ceilings Act necessitate a re-determination of surplus land in adherence to legislative amendments, disallowing re-litigation on previously settled land is....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.