Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—Instant petition is directed against re-opening of ceiling proceedings at the instance of Deputy Secretary (Ceiling) Revenue Department Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide order dt.22/06/1982 (Ann.1A) making Reference for inquiry to the District Collector, Bundi who declared 24 bighas 15 biswas of land as surplus vide order dt.11/12/95 (Ann.2) duly affirmed by Board of Revenue in revision vide judgment dt.31/07/97 (Ann.7), which the petitioner seeks to quash.

2. Chapter III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“Old Ceiling Law”) came into force on 01/04/1963, 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 holdings 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 01/04/1966, 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.03/05/72. 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 29/03/1973, Dy Secretary (Ceiling), Department of Revenue issued notice to husband of petitioner on 06/06/79 and after affording opportunity of hearing to him, ordered re-opening of ceiling proceedings vide order dt.22/06/82 (Ann.1A) and while making Reference authorised 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 14/08/85 but they failed to appear in proceedings and accordingly, ex parte proceedings were ordered on 07/07/89. However, Additional Collector, Bundi vide order dt.11/12/95 (Ann.2) held that on 01/04/1966, 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 01/04/66 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) filed two applications on 19/06/96 (Ann.3) for setting aside ex parte proceedings and another on 06/07/96 (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.11/09/96 (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.31/07/97 (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. 01/01/1973) and six years being expired on 01/01/1979 their case could not have been reopened U/s 15(2) of the Act, 1973 thereafter and thus very notice issued on 06/06/79 for re-opening of proceedings were without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. In support, Counsel relied upon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document