Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.1987 passed by the Additional Collector, Baran and aggrieved by the order dated 28.12.1989 passed by the Board of Revenue ('the Board', for short), the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. By the former order, the Additional Collector, Baran after reopening the case under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (henceforth referred to as the, “New Ceiling Act”) held that 9.8 standard acres of land was above the ceiling limit. Therefore, the same should be resumed by the Government. By the latter order, the order dated 31.07.1987 was confirmed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that initially land ceiling proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's father, Ratan Singh under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred as “the Old Ceiling Act”). However, vide order dated 01.05.1972, the Dy. Collector had dropped the ceiling proceedings against Ratan Singh. Subsequently, it was discovered that the declaration made by Ratan Singh with regard to the number of family members was incorrect. According to the declaration submitted by him on 18.02.1966, his family consisting of seven persons including a daughter-in-law, Chindo. However, as a daughter-in-law was not included in the definition of “family” given under Section 30 of the Old Ceiling Act, the State Government decided to reopen the entire case. It referred the matter to the Additional District Collector Shahabad. Subsequently, the case was transferred from Additional District Collector, Shahabad to Additional Collector, Baran, district Kota. Notices were issued to Ratan Singh. Despite the repeated opportunities given to him to file his reply, he failed to do so. However, he was represented through his counsel before the Additional District Collector Kota. After hearing both the parties, the Additional Collector concluded that Chindo, the daughter-in-law, could not be included in the definition of family. Therefore, there was only six members in the family of Ratan Singh. A family consisting of five members was entitled to thirty standard acres of land, and every extra person was entitled to five standard acres of land. Thus, the family consisting of six members was entitled for thirty-five standard acres of land. Since, Ratan Singh had 44.80 standard acres of land, therefore 9.8 standard acres of land should be acquired by the Government. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the Board. However, vide order dated 28.12.1989, the learned Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Additional District Collector Baran. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Kapil Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, the second proviso to Section 15(2) prescribes the period of limitation i.e, that the case cannot be reopened after the expiry of seven years from the date of the final order. In the present case, the ceiling proceedings were dropped vide order dated 01.05.1972. Therefore, the said case could not be reopened after a period of eight years i.e., in 1980. Hence, the reopening of the case is hit by limitation. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Dhanraj & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (1995 RRD 115) and on the case of Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (1997 RRD 547).

4. Secondly, the procedure for reopening of the case as given in Section 10 to Section 12 of the New Ceiling Act has not been followed. For, no notice was given to the petitioner's father.

5. Thirdly, since the land was ancestral one, not only the sons, but even the daughter-in-law would have a share in the said land. Therefore, the daughter-in-law would have to be included as a family member. Hence, the Additional Collector was not justified in excluding the daughter-in-law

Click Here to Read the rest of this document