1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

[1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2480/1995

Surajmal & Ors.

Versus

The Revenue Board, Rajasthan & Ors.

[2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.444/2001

Gopal

Versus

The Revenue Board, Rajasthan & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : 16/01/2014

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Mr. Vijay Choudhary for Mr. N.C. Choudhary, for petitioners

Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for respondents

***

By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the order

dated 27.02.1993 passed under Section 15(2) of Rajasthan

Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (in

short “Act, 1973”). The other challenge is to the order dated

28.10.1993 passed by the Board of Revenue in appeal

preferred by the petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that ceiling case of petitioners

was finalized under the old Ceiling Act however it was re-

opened without a notice to the petitioners. A notice was given

only to the co-tenant, Gopal and not to the petitioners thus the

order dated 27.02.1993 was passed in violation of the

principles of natural justice and provisions of Act, 1973. The

2

case could have been reopened and decided after notice to the

petitioners. The impugned orders thus deserve to be set aside

on this ground alone.

It is further stated that before passing the order, the

respondents were under an obligation to cause inquiry and to

find out number of units for determination of land, whether

coming under the ceiling. The respondents failed to do so and

passed erroneous order without ascertaining as to how many

units exist in the family of the present petitioners. They clubbed

all the family members to determine ceiling limit of 60 bighas.

The authority further committed illegality in drawing

presumption of maximum 5 members as provided under the

new law, whereas a case settled under old law and on

reopening, has to be determined as per old law.

Lastly it is contended that even nature of soil was

required to be ascertained as it cannot be decided based on

presumption. It is moreso when nature of the soil determines

ceiling limit to occupy the land. The respondents failed to

consider the aforesaid and treated the land under command

area.

It is further contended that reopening of the case by the

respondents was beyond limitation provided under the new Act.

This court gave direction for submission of the affidavit and

synopsis to give details of dates so as determine the issue of

3

limitation.

Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand,

contested the matter.

It is stated that issue of limitation was never raised by the

petitioners either at the time of causing notice under new Act or

before filing of the appeal before the Board of Revenue. The

plea of limitation has not even been raised in the writ petition

thus arguments aforesaid may not be entertained. It is also

stated that order dated 28.10.1993 was passed after giving

notice to the petitioners and co-tenant. It is therefore only that

petitioners kept silence of the issue while filing appeal and even

in the writ petition. The oral arguments have been raised in

regard to passing of the order dated 28.10.1993 without a

notice. It is factually incorrect and should not be entertained in

absence of pleading and material. The competent authority had

issued notice to the petitioners and others. The petitioners and

others failed to put in appearance after notice. The inquiry was

caused as has been mentioned in the order dated 27.02.1993.

It contains fact of absence of petitioners despite notice. The

State Government vide its order dated 17.10.1989 asked to

determine the issues raised therein after inquiry. The impugned

order was passed after inquiry of the issues framed by the

Government therefore, thus no illegality has been caused

therein. The petitioners are those who failed to make

4

declaration as requir