The State Government cannot re-open concluded ceiling proceedings under the Rajasthan Ceiling Act beyond the prescribed limitation period, rendering such actions invalid.

Judgment

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

These Special Appeals are directed against the writ Court's decision not to interfere with the orders passed by the Board of Revenue on 26^th October 1993 and 9^th September 1997 whereby the decision of the authorized Officer to resume 336 bigha and 4 biswa land from the appellants was approved by it.

2. Raghvendra Singh and Manvendra Singh both son of late Bheem Singh Ji claiming themselves to be the residents of Beenawas within Tehsil Bilara in the district of Jodhpur have approached this Court through D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.21 of 2020 to question the order dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3930 of 1997. By filing D.B. Special Appeal No.64 of 2017, Pratap Singh who was the respondent no.5 in the aforementioned writ proceedings has also laid a challenge to the said decision of the writ Court rendered on 16^th August 2016.

3. Briefly stated, a proceeding was drawn against Bheem Singh Ji and his family members under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holding Act 1973 (in short, ‘Rajasthan Ceiling Act’) the provisions of which had come into force with effect from 1^st January 1973. Pursuant thereto, an inquiry was caused and a report was submitted whereunder Bheem Singh Ji and his family members were shown to have surplus agricultural land at Beenawas and Kaparda; more particularly, in the landed property measuring about 527 bigha belonging to the Salt Company. As per this inquiry report, Bheem Singh Ji could retain certain portions of the lands at village Beenawas and Kaparda and about 190 bigha and 16 biswa land out of the aforementioned lands recorded in the name of the Salt Company was to be resumed. By filing Ceiling Appeal No.118 of 1976, Bheem Singh Ji challenged the order dated 20^th January 1976 passed by the authorized Officer for acquiring the said piece of land which according to him was non-irrigated land and thus could not have been considered as surplus land. On 31^st March 1976, the aforesaid appeal preferred by Bheem Singh Ji was dismissed by the Additional Collector who held that the lands recorded in the name of the wife and minor sons of Bheem Singh Ji cannot be excluded and the ceiling limit was to be decided taking them as the part of joint family. The said order was challenged in Ceiling Review Appeal No.329 of 1976 before the Board of Revenue which disposed of the Review Appeal vide order dated 14^th July 1976 with an observation that the Final Settlement order should include a total of only 190 bigha and 16 biswa land and the rest of the land out of 527 bigha belonging to the Salt Company was to be left out of the ceiling proceedings. The Board of Revenue clarified that the order dated 14^th July 1976 shall be without prejudice to the final decision in the Assessment File of the Salt Company which was reportedly pending separately at that time.

4. More than six years thereafter, the authorized Officer under the Rajasthan Ceiling Act was directed by the State Government by passing the order dated 23^rd February 1983 to re-open the ceiling proceedings against Bheem Singh Ji and his family. In compliance thereof, the Additional Collector who is the authorized Officer under the Rajasthan Ceiling Act passed an order on 29^th August 1985 for acquiring 336 bigha and 4 biswa land which was excluded from the ceiling proceedings by virtue of the order dated 14^th July 1976 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Tehsildar was directed to take possession over that piece of land. This decision of the Additional Collector, Jodhpur to acquire 336 bigha and 4 biswa land was approved by an order dated 26^th October 1993 passed in Ceiling Appeal No.88 of 1991 and so also in Ceiling (Review) Petition No.13 of 1994 which came to be dismissed on 9^th September 1997 by the Board of Revenue.

5. The Rajasthan Ceiling Act was enacted to secure the ownership and control of the material resources and, in particular, the agricultural lands available for cultivation in the State of Ra