Honble SHETHNA, J. – The petitioner was adopted on Kartik Vadi 14 Samvat year 2030 at the age of only 10 years by Shri Manphul Ram. But, the adoption deed was got registered only on 5th October, 1970. Proceedings under old ceiling law were dropped against Manphul Ram. Thereafter, the proceedings under new ceiling law were dropped by an order dated 8.7.75. Thereafter, by an order dated 23.11.77, the State Government re-opened the case under Section 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act, 1973 under the new ceiling law (Annex.3). Additional Collector by his order dated 22.4.80 held that Manphul Ram had 79.10 bighas surplus land under the `new Act and ordered the same to be resumed to the State. The Board of Revenue remanded the case to the Collector on 2.4.81 by setting aside the order. The Addl. Collector, by his order dated 8.10.85 once again held that Manphul Ram had 79.10 bighas surplus land (Annex. 4). The Board of Revenue by an order dated 22.8.89 (Annex. 6) dismissed the appeal filed by Krishna Lal son of Manphul Ram, (the petitioner), though it held that under the new ceiling law, the assessee had no surplus land as it was held that the assessee had 79.10 Bighas surplus land under the old ceiling Act. Accordingly, it held that the learned Additional Collector was right in ordering to acquire 79.10 bighas land. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders at Annexures 4 and 6 passed by the Additional Collector and Board of Revenue respectively in this petition.

(2). Learned counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioner submitted that in case of Smt. Pari Devi vs. State of Rajasthan (1), this court held that once the proceedings under the old and new ceiling law are dropped then later on it is not permissible to the State Government to re-open the case against the assessee under the new ceiling law. He, therefore, submitted that it was not open to the Board of Revenue to exercise the powers under proviso (2) to Section 4(1) of the New Ceiling Act and to hold against the Assessee that he had surplus land under the old ceiling Act, particularly when the Board of Revenue found that there was no surplus land under the new ceiling Act. He also submitted that by exercising his powers under proviso (2) to Section 4(1) of the New Ceiling Act, the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has set at naught the earlier decision to drop the proceedings under the old Act. He submitted that when it was not open to the State Government to re-open the case under the old ceiling Act as held in Pari Devis case (supra) then it cannot be done by resorting to the provisions of proviso (2) to Section 4(1) of the Act by the Board of Revenue. He also submitted that before re-opening the case, show cause notice was issued to the assessee under Section 15(1) of the Act to re-open the case under the new ceiling Act and not under the old Ceiling Act. He submitted that the notice could be issued under Section 15(1) of the new Ceiling Act either within five years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or before 30th June, 1979 which ever is later. If the case is to be re-opened under t he old ceiling law then the notice should be given before the expiry of seven years period from the date of passing of the final order which was sought to be re-opened or before 30th June, 1979 which ever is later. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Member of the Board of Revenue has not only wrongly exercised his powers under proviso (2) to Section 4(1) of the New Ceiling Act without giving any notice to the petitioner but also exercised the powers after the period prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue holding that the assessee had surplus land of 79.10 bighas under the old ceiling Act, be quashed and set aside.

(3). Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Udawat, however, submitted that Pari Devis case (supra) will not apply in this case. He submitted that nothing wrong was c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document