MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition pertaining to the agricultural land ceiling matter and preferred in challenge to the order dated 19.12.1989 (Annex. 10) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer ('the Board of Revenue') was earlier considered and allowed on 18.02.1997 with the Court essentially accepting the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner-assessee that the ceiling case having been decided under the old ceiling law (i.e., the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955) and so also under the new ceiling law (i.e., the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973), as per the ratio of the decision in Smt. Pari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1984 RLR 931, the proceedings could not have been re-opened under the old ceiling law.

(2.) The present matter was taken in intra-court appeal and was considered by the Honble Division Bench alongwith cognate matters; and the appeal relating to the present case (SAW No. 337/2003) was considered and decided on 11.01.2011 in the common order as made in SAW No. 312/1998. The Honourable Division Bench found it just and proper to set aside the earlier order passed in this writ petition and to restore the writ petition to its number for decision on merits essentially with the observations that the aforesaid decision in Pari Devi's case was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1989 (1) RLW 670; and the contention urged on behalf of the State was that the ratio of Pari Devi, to a large extent, stood either over-ruled or, in any event, diluted in Ram Gopal's case. The Honourable Division Bench, therefore, directed that the case be decided afresh keeping in view the law laid down in Ram Gopal's case or any other law for the time being in force governing the issue involved.

(3.) After such remand of the matter, the petitioner has moved an application (IA No. 2896/2011) seeking to amend the writ petition so as to urge other and additional grounds regarding the nature of the land holdings. However, on the matter being taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed on this application for amendment. Accordingly, the application (IA No. 2896/2011) is rejected as not pressed.