Order

29/04/2026

1. Present writ petition is filed challenging validity and propriety of order dated 16.07.2012 passed by learned Board of Revenue (“BOR”) whereby, the judgment dated 14.12.2004 passed by Court of learned Additional District Collector, Pali, has been set aside and directions were issued to restore the resumed land.

2. It is contended that proceedings under Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (“Ceiling Act”) were initially undertaken in the year 1971 and were closed vide order dated 02.03.1973. However, the said proceedings were reopened and ultimately decided vide order dated 14.12.2004, directing the State authorities to acquire the land in question.

The said order dated 14.12.2004 was challenged by respondent Nos. 1 to 6 by way of an appeal before the learned Board of Revenue. While deciding the appeal vide judgment dated 16.07.2012, learned Board of Revenue recorded findings that the proceedings had been undertaken without following the procedure prescribed under the Ceiling Act and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. Learned Board of Revenue further observed that reopening of the ceiling proceedings after such a long lapse of time was unjustified. Accordingly, vide order dated 16.07.2012, learned Board of Revenue set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2004 and directed restoration of the resumed land in favour of the appellants therein.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Board of Revenue has committed an error in allowing the appeal, as a huge chunk of land is involved. It is further contended that while deciding the issue in question, learned Board of Revenue has failed to take into consideration the relevant provisions of Ceiling Act.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. J.L. Purohit, appearing for the respondents, submits that present writ petition challenging the order dated 16.07.2012 has been filed after a gross delay of fourteen years. It is further submitted that there is not even a whisper in the writ petition explaining the delay and laches in filing the present petition. It is, therefore, contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches.

4.1 Learned Senior Counsel contended that as a matter of fact, the order impugned dated 16.07.2012 has not been challenged by respondent – State in last 14 years and also not complied with the directions contained therein. In these circumstances, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5393/2026 (Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.) has been preferred praying for compliance of order dated 16.07.2012. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.03.2026, disposed of the said writ petition and directed District Collector, Pali to comply with the judgment dated 16.07.2012 within a period of 45 days. It is contended that present writ petition is filed just with a view to escape compliance of judgment dated 28.03.2026, therefore, present writ petition is nothing, but a gross abuse of process of law.

4.2 Learned Senior Counsel further stated that issue involved in the present case is covered by judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17987/2024 (State of Rajasthan vs. Nishan Singh & Ors) so also law laid down in case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20730/2025 (State of Rajasthan vs. Smt. Anju Babel & Anr.).

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Upon perusal of record of the present case, this Court finds that challenging impugned order dated 16.07.2012, present writ petition is filed after fourteen years and no explanation, much less any satisfactory explanation is mentioned in the writ petition to justify said delay. This Court is of the considered view that, on the one hand, respondent–authorities have failed to comply with the directions issued by learned Board of Revenue for more than a decade, and on the other hand, the present writ petition has been filed only to avoid compliance of the dir