Kuldeep Singh vs State of Rajasthan

P.C. Jain, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ quashing and setting aside the order dated 25th September, 1975, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake; order dated 7th February, 1976 passed by the Additional Collector, Jaipur and the order dated 10th January, 1977, passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (here in after referred to as the Old Ceiling Law). In the proceedings, it was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake by his order dated 6th December 1971 that transfer of 860 Bighas 4 Biswas of land was valid and permissible and, for the remaining land there were three equal shares of the petitioner, his Sister Jyendra Kumari and his grandmother Smt. Rasal Kanwar. The remaining land is equivalent to 120 standard acres of land, therefore, leaving standard acres in three shares, 30 standard acres of land be acquired. The petitioner has further stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer acting as Authored Officer in proceedings under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (here in after referred to as the New Ceiling Law) passed an order dated 25th September, 1975, whereby he held that the petitioner is holding 189-1/2 standard acres of land, put of which 54 acres be left with the petitioner and 135.6 acres of land he declared as being in excess of the ceiling limit and be ordered to be acquired. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, which was dismissed on 7th February, 1976. Again aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, the petitioner filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10th January, 1977. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments. the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Shri B.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the aforesaid orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Addl. Collector and the Board of Revenue mainly on the ground that when the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sambhar Lake in his order dated 6th December. 1971 had accepted the equal shares of the petitioner, his sister Jyendra Kumari and his grand-mother Smt. Rasal Kanwar, then the said finding could not have been ignored or1 re opend or set aside by the Sub-Divisional ''Officer, Sambhar Lake white proceeding under the New Ceiling Law. In short, the contention of Shri Sharma is that since in the proceedings under the Old & the New Ceiling Law,. the parties were the same as also the authority deciding the �matter, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 6th December, 1971 had the effect of res-judicata and the order dated 6th December, 1971, could not have been set aside by the subsequent order dated 25th September, 1075. It was-also contended by Shri Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 6th December, 1971 was passed on the basis of a decree passed by the Court of law established under the revenue laws of the land and as such,it was beyond the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer to nullify the effect of the decree by re-opening the order dated 6th December, 1971 by his order dated 25th February, 1975. Another submission of Shri Sharma is that the SDO under the New Ceiling Law was not competent to re-open the case decided under the Old Ceiling Law while resorting to proceed under the provisions of the New Ceiling Law as a case decided under the Old Ceiling Law could be re-opened by the order of the Government passed u/s 15(2) of the New Ceiling Law. Shri Sharma also submitted that Jyendra Kumari and Smt., Rasal Kanwar have shares in the land recorded in the petitioner''s name and their shares should have been excluded while computing the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner. ''

Shri N.L. Pareek, learned Addl. Government Advocate, while replying to the submissions made by Shri B.L. Sharma, submitted that the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer is perfectly justified and no interference is called for by this Court. On facts, Shri Pareek submitted that the lands which stood in name of the petitioner on the crucial day i.e. 26th September 1970 and which was verified by the Tehsildar to be in the Khata of the petitioner were taken into consideration by the revenue authorities while considering the case of the petitioner. The petitioner as Khatedar did not point out the particulars of transfers made prior to 26th September, 1970 which affected his holding on 26th September, 1970 and thus the objection raised by the petitioner was rightly rejected. Shri Pareek further pointed out that after 26th September, 1970 the land measuring 38-1/4 acres was transferred through registered sale-deed and the transferees were found in possession of the land were rightly excluded from the petitioner''s holding along with the land measuring 117-4/5 Bighas acquired under the old ceiling law. Shri Pareek also submitted that the SDO, Sambhar Lake vide his order dated 6th December, 1971, rightly ignored the shares of the grand-mother and sister Jyendra Kumari as the land stood in the name of the petitioner in the record of rights and he used to pay land revenue of it. Shri Pareek ''pointed out that the decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 1st Dec, 1971 was a consent decree and was passed after the appointed date and was an act to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Law.

We have given out thoughtful consideration to the respective sub- mission made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The main point which has been argued by Shri B.L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in view of the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 6th December, 1971, which was passed under the provisions of the Old Ceiling Law, the Authorised Officer under the New Ceiling Law could not have proceeded with for acquiring any land under the provisions of the New Ceiling Law. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by Shri Sharma, it would be better if we look at the statement of objects and reasons given for the enactment of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973. It is stated that the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 had imposed a ceiling of 30 standard acres on the holding of agricultural land in the State and it is felt that still great disparity in the holding of agricultural land leading to the concentration of such land in the hands of few persons exists. It was also observed that the agricultural land available for cultivation in the State is limited. Thus, the Act was passed to reduce such disparity and to re fix the ceiling area on agricultural holdings so that surplus agricultural land may be available for distribution to landless persons. From the statement of objects and reasons it is thus, clear that the New Ceiling Law was enacted as the purpose for which the Old Ceiling Law as passed was not capable of fulfilling the objects of the Ceiling Law. It is true that under the Old Ceiling Law contained in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Sub-Divisional-Officer computed the ceiling area applicable to the petitioner and acquired only 30 standard acres of land leaving 90. standard acres in three shares. After the New Ceiling Law was made applicable proceedings- were initiated, tinder the New Ceiling Law by the Sub-Divisional Officer who passed the; impugned order dated 25th September, 1975. Thus, the question raised is, whether it was within the competence of the Sub-Divisional Officer to initiate proceedings under the New Ceiling Law when he-had already determined the, ceiling area applicable to the petitioner under the old ceiling law, and the order passed by him on 6th December, 1971 became final; We are, thus, required to consider whether in view of the finding- recorded by the Sub- Divisional Officer under the Old Ceiling Law in his judgment dated 6th December, 1971 operates as res-judicata; and bars the proceedings to be initiated under the New Ceiling Law.

The object of the Ceiling Law is clear. It provides that If there, is any land in excess of the ceiling area on the appointed date it ceases to belong to the owner. Section 4 of the New Ceiling Law provides fixation of ceiling on land holdings and Section 5 provides rules for computation of ceiling area. Section 11 of the New Celling Law makes it obligatory upon a person who holds land in excess of the ceiling area appplicable, into him to furnish a return. It also provides that in case any person holding land in excess of ceiling area fails to furnish return the Authorised Officer is empowered to issue notice requiring such person to furnish a return or additional particulars, as the case may be, within the time specified in the notice, or within such further time, not ''exceeding 30 days, as the Authorised Officer may in his discretion allow. Section 11(b) provides procedure for disposal of returns or supplementary returns filed u/s 11(a). Section 12 lays down that after the receipt of the return, the Authorised Officer is required to prepare a draft statement in respect of each person holding land in excess of the ceiling area & the draft statement is required to be served on the persons concerned who are interested in the land to which such draft statement relates. The Authorised Officer is required to consider the objections'' filed with regard to the draft statement and the final statement is required to be published in the manner provided u/s 13. Thus, after coming into force of the New Ceiling Law it is imperative on the part of the Authorized Officer to proceed to take appropriate measures against the persons holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. The Authorized Officer could not be precluded from taking proceedings against any person holding land in excess of the ceiling limit. In the instant case the Authorized Officcer was of the opinion that the petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and, therefore, it was statutory duty of the Authorized Officer to have proceeded u/s 11 of the Act. The moment the Authorized Officer forms an opinion that the petitioner or his family of which he was the member was holding any land in excess of the ceiling area in accordance with the provisions of the Act, it was his duty to have proceeded u/s 11 of the Act. From the facts on record it is clear that the petitioner was holding land in excess of the ceiling limit and thus, the Authorized Officer was perfectly justified to take appropriate proceedings u/s 11 of the New Ceiling Law and there is no merit in the contention of Shri Sharma that fresh proceedings for computation of ceiling area under the New Ceiling Law is barred. In fact, looking to the object of the Act. It was imperative on the part of the petitioner himself to have surrendered the excess land as he ceased to hold any land in excess of the ceiling area with effect from the appointed dare. In Amarjeet Kaur and Ors. v. State and Ors. 1987 (1) RLR 544, a division bench of this court considered this aspect of the matter where the facts were that proceedings were initiated under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the proceedings were ultimately dropped by the order dated 14th January, 1971 by the SDO, Baran. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector, Baran commenced the proceedings afresh under the New Ceiling Law who decided the case by order dated 28th February, 1976, against which an appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector, Kota who remanded the case to the Assistant Collector for determining the ceiling area afresh vide order dated 4th August, 1976. The aggrieved party again went in appeal against the fresh order before the Additional Collector, Kota and the Additional Collector decided the matter on 4th April, 1985 by remanding the case to the Assistant Collector, Shahbad for deciding the matter afresh under the New Ceiling Law. In the meanwhile, the Deputy Secretary Government) by order dated 5ih October, 1978, re-opened the proceedings u/s 15(2) of the New Ceiling Law. The Effect of this order was that the Proceeding were started afresh by the Additional Collector, Kota under the Ceiling Law. It was, in these circumstances, held that since the proceedings were pending before the Assistant Collector, Shahbad, in pursuance of the remand order of the Assistant Collector, Kota, dated 4th April, 1985, the same will continue and the Assistant Collector would be competent to determine the ceiling area and, it was also held that the re-opening of the proceedings under the Old Act by the Deputy Secretary (Revenue) was without jurisdiction. Thus, in Amarjeet Kaur''s case, it was clearly held that even after the decision under the old ceiling law, proceedings under the New Ceiling Law could be commenced and pending proceedings under the New Ceiling Act, the proceedings could not have been re-opened even under the Old Act by resorting to the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act.

In State of Rajasthan v. Prithvi Singh and Ors. 1986 RLR 32 a division bench of this Court held that if proceedings are pending under the Old Ceiling Law and not disposed of when the New Ceiling Law came into force, then the proceedings must be disposed of in accordance with the Old Ceiling Law. It was also held that if the proceedings were initiated and disposed of before the New Ceiling Law came into force, the State Government was entitled to re-open such case u/s 15(2) of the New Ceiling Law. In prithvi Singh''s case it was also held that the State Government is entitled to get the ceiling area determined either under the Old Ceiling Law or the New ceiling Law which ever is beneficial to the State Government in view of second proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the New Ceiling Law. In Amarjeet Kaur''s case (supra), it was further explained that inspite of the proceedings having been dropped under the Old Ceiling Law fresh proceedings under the New Ceiling law could be commenced, which view finds support from a Division Bench judgment in Mrs. Sumitra Kaur v. A.O. Shri Ganga Nagar 1977 WLN 505.

Thus, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the sub-missions made by Shri Sharma that the proceedings under the Old Ceiling Law which culminated in the judgment dated 6th December, 1971 of the Sub-Divisional Officer became final and, therefore, proceedings for computation of ceiling area under the New Ceiling Law were barred on the principle of res-judicata.

Another submission of Shri Sharma is that shares of Jyendra Kumari and Smt. Rasal Kanwar should have been taken into account by the Authorized Officer. In this regard, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is justified. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is as follows:

It was argued that the Courts below had erred in excluding their shares. The land in dispute was recorded in the name of applicant''s father. The father expired in 1956 and the land was recorded in the name of the applicant and his mother. The applicant did not think of the share of the sister and the aunt till 112-1971. The Courts below held that the suit for partition was an filed and allowed to be decreed because of the Ceiling Act and was attempt to defeat the provisions of the Act. The conclusion is justified in the circumstances of the case. When the land recorded in the name of the applicant the question of partition between him and his sister, etc., could not arise because they do not have any share in the land recorded in the name of applicant. In view of the justification of the finding that the transaction is fictitious and calculated to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Law, the plea is untenable.

In the premises aforesaid, there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition, thus, fails and is here by dismissed with no order as costs.