Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 791
[Citation : RLW 2009(2) RJ 822 (HC)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Kalyani Bai Vs. State & Ors. (Rastogi, J.)
HON'BLE AJAY RASTOGI, J.
Kalyani Bai
Versus
State & Ors.
Civil Writ Petition No 70 of 1998, decided on 29.5.2009
K.K. Mehrishi, for Petitioner;
Raj Sharma, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for Respondent State
Headnote:Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, Sec. 15(2); Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1979, Sec. 2(1) and Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Chapter III-B — Re-opening of ceiling proceedings — Petition for quashing — Reference for inquiry — Once proceedings were dropped in 1972 — Revenue Department issued notice to husband of petitioner on 6.6.1979 — Re-opening of proceeding ordered on 22.6.1982 — Opportunity of hearing not given — Hence this petition on ground of limitation for setting aside ex parte order and re-calling of order — Held — Notice issued to petitioner on 6.6.1979 was within a period of limitation as per substitution of 2nd proviso to Sec. 15(2), period of limitation was seven years from the date of final order — Petitioners sons were legal heirs/ representatives of deceased land holder were impleaded as party respondent in pending ceiling proceeding after death of her husband — In absence of petitioners impleadment as party respondent of deceased land holder having no adverse interest in the estate of deceased — Nothing has been placed on record that family of deceased land holder were entitled for an additional unit as on 1.4.1966 — No prejudice caused to petitioner in absence of her impleadment — No manifest error found in impugned order — No interference called for. (Paras 20 to 24)
Only objection being noticed for re-opening of proceedings and having been decided under old ceiling law, that one (Shakerlal) son of deceased land holder attained majority as on 1.4.66 and was entitled for a separate unit, was the fact taken note of for dropping the proceedings. But material having come on record is that none of his children attained majority on 1.4.66 and being in all five members in the family of land holder who were entitled to retain 60 bighas and 15 biswas of land was surplus in their hands, which was finally upheld by Addl. Collector and Board of Revenue under orders impugned. Even before this Court, nothing has been placed on record that the family of deceased land holder was entitled for an additional unit as on 1.4.66 and they all being members of one family were entitled for single unit having common interest in estate of the deceased land holder under ceiling law, which was retained under order impugned; no prejudice in absence of her impleadment in any manner has caused to them. (Para 23)
jktLFkku —f"k tksrksa ij vf/kdre lhek vf/kjksi.k vf/kfu;e] 1973] /kkjk 15¼2½( jktLFkku —f"k tksrksa ij vf/kdre lhek ¼lakks/ku o fof/kekU;dj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1979] /kkjk 2¼1½ ,oa jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] v/;k; III-[k & lhfyax dk;Zokgh dk iqu% [kksyk tkuk & vfHk[kf.Mr djus gsrq ;kfpdk & tk¡p gsrq funsZk & ,dckj dk;Zokfg;kW 1972 esa can dj nh xbZ Fkh & jktLo foHkkx us izkFkhZ ds ifr dks 6-6-1979 dks uksfVl tkjh fd;k & 22-6-1982 dks dk;Zokgh dks [kksyus dk vknsk fn;k & lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;k & vr% ifjlhek ds vk/kkj ij ,di{kh; vknsk vikLr djus ,oa vknsk dks okil eaxkus gsrq ;g ;kfpdk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 6-6-1979 dks izkFkhZ dks tkjh fd;k x;k uksfVl /kkjk 15¼2½ ds f}rh; ijUrqd ds izfrLFkkiu ds vuqlkj ifjlhek vof/k ds vUnj Fkk ifjlhek dh vof/k vfUre vknsk dh frfFk ls 7 o"kZ Fkh & izkfFkZ;k ds yM+ds e`rd Hkwfe /kkjd ds fof/kd mÙkjkf/kdkjh@izfrfuf/k Fks tks mlds ifr dh e`R;q ds ipkr~ yfEcr lhfyax dk;Zokgh esa izfroknh ds :i esa i{kdkj cuk;s x;s & izkfFkZ;k dks e`rd Hkwfe /kkjd ds izfroknh i{kdkj ugha cuk;s tkus ds dkj.k e`rd dh lEefr ds fgr esa izfrdwy izHkko ugha iM+rk & vfHkys[k ij dqN ugha j[kk x;k fd e`rd Hkwfe /kkjd dk ifjokj 1-6-1966 dks vfrfjä bZdkbZ gsrq gdnkj Fks & izkFkhZ dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;s tkus ls mldks izfrdwy dkfjr ugha gqvk & vk{ksfir vknsk esa Li"V =qfV ugha ik;h & gLr{ksi gsrq ekax ughaA
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA ¼in la- 20 ls 24½
2. Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("Old Ceiling Law") came into force on 1.4.1963, under which every land holder having been in possession of land in excess of ceiling area as prescribed under Chapter III-B of Old Ceiling law was required to file written statement of his agricultural holdings before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Pursuant to which, Ram Narain, husband of petitioner, having khatedari rights over his agricultural holding measuring 84 bighas 15 biswas of land in village Kheriya Durjan Chambal Irrigation Area Group-I village, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, filed declaration u/R. 9 of Rajasthan Tenancy Fixation of Ceiling of land on Agricultural Holdings Rules ("Fixation Ceiling Rules") before SDO Bundi. The authority held that as on 1.4.1966, Shankerlal, one of the sons of land holder, was major and was entitled for a separate unit and accordingly proceedings were dropped vide order dt. 3.5.72. Thereafter, in view of S. 15 (2) of Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 ("New Ceiling Law") which was introduced by repealing Chapter III-B of Old Ceiling Law & published in Official Gazettee on 29.3.1973, Dy Secretary (Ceiling), Department of Revenue issued notice to husband of petitioner on 6.6.79 and after affording opportunity of hearing to him, ordered re-opening of ceiling proceedings vide order dt. 22.6.82 (Ann. 1A) and while making Reference authorities Additional Collector, Bundi to conduct inquiry and decide ceiling proceedings afresh. Pendente proceedings, on 15.11.83 land holder & husband of petitioner died whose legal heirs were brought on record who filed their reply to show cause notice on 14.8.85 but they failed to appear in proceedings and accordingly, ex parte proceedings were ordered on 7.7.89. However, Additional Collector Bundi vide order dt. 11.12.95 (Ann. 2) held that on 1.4.1966, family of husband (land holder) of petitioner was consisting of five members; and there was no evidence brought on record that any of his sons including eldest son Shankerlal had attained majority on 1.4.66 and was entitled to hold a separate unit; and family being consisted of five members was entitled to retain 60 bighas of land under ceiling law and accordingly declared 24 bighas & 15 biswas of land as surplus.
3. However, petitioner, claiming herself as widow of land holder (Ramnarain), after passing of the order dt. 11.12.1995 (Ann. 2) passing of the older dt. 11.12.1995 (Ann. 2) filed two applications on 19.6.96 (Ann. 3) for setting aside ex parte proceedings and another on 6.7.96 (Ann. 5) for re-calling order dt. 11.12.95 & for conducting proceedings afresh on the premise that despite being legal heir and necessary party, she was not afforded opportunity of hearing; which were rejected vide order dt. 11.9.96 (Ann. 6) holding that her husband was duly represented by her sons and her rights were not at all in any manner adversely affected - against which she preferred revision (No. 174/96/T/A/Bundi) before Board of Revenue and which too was dismissed vide judgment dt. 31.7.97 (Ann. 7).
4. Counsel for petitioner submits that u/S. 15(2), limitation has been prescribed of six years from the date of commencement of new ceiling law (Ceiling Act, 1973) viz. 1.1.1973) and six years being expired on 1.1.1979 their case could not have been reopened u/S. 15(2) of the Act, 1973 thereafter and thus very notice issued on 6.6.79 for re-opening of proceedings were without jurisdiction and deserves to be set a
