MOTILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fact concisely stated are that in ceiling proceedings initiated against Motilal (petitioner herein) in respect of his agricultural land situated in village Raithal, Tehsil Mangrol District Kota, (now in District Baran), 30 Bighas and 18 Biswas of his land was declared surplus vide order dt. 22.1.1979, thereby Motilal submitted option to surrender 30 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land out of Khasra No. 9 of his village Raithal, to which Mathuralal (respondent No. 5, herein) raised objection stating that he had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1958 and so it was an encumbered land. But, the Assistant Collector Baran, after having considered respondent No. 5's objections and heard the petitioner rejected the objections vide his order dt. 28.2.1981 (Ann.A), and directed the Tehsildar Mangrol to take possession of the land in dispute. Against order (Ann.A) rejecting objections, the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Kota vide order dt. 27.12.1982 (Ann.B), resulting in filing second appeal by the respondent No. 5 before the Revenue Board, which by its order dt. 25.8.1988 (Ann.C) accepted the second appeal while setting aside orders (Ann. A and B) of the Authorised Officer and the Appellate Authority (Ceiling) and accordingly the Asstt. Collector (Authorised Officer) was directed to acquire unencumbered land in lieu of the land in dispute which stood transferred in favour of Mathuralal.

(2.) HOWEVER , the petitioner preferred a review petition challenging order dt. 25.8.1988 (Ann.C) of the Revenue Board which allowed the review petition under order dt. 29.8.1989 (Ann.E) by quashing its earlier order dt. 25.8.1988 and thereby second appeal was directed to be reheard. Ultimately second appeal was reheard after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but vide its judgment dt. 19.12.1989 (Ann.F), the Revenue Baord allowed second appeal holding that Mathuralal ought to have been given opportunity of hearing in view of Section 12(3) and therefore, his appeal was maintainable and consequently, the position remained that orders of the Authorised Officer and the Ceiling Appellate Authority dt. 28.2.1981 and 27.12.1982 (Ann. A and B) stood quashed and set aside and resultantly the Revenue Board in its order dt. 19.12.1989 (Ann.F) directed the Authorised Officer to take proceedings in accordance with law for unencumbered land. Here again, review petition was preferred by the petitioner challenging second appellate order dt. 19.12.1989 (Ann.F) on the grounds that respondent No. 5's appeal was not maintainable as he had not assailed original assessment order of declaring surplus land. However, the Revenue Board by its order dt. 14.5.1990 (Ann. 4) dismissed petitioner's second review petition holding it as not maintainable. Therefore, the petitioner preferred this writ petition at hand assailing validity of second appellate order dt. 19.12.1989 (Ann.F) and order in review petition dt. 14.5.1990 (Ann.H).

(3.) AFTER remand (supra) writ petition was allowed to be amended and according to which relief sought by the petitioner is to (i) quash and set aside order dt. 22.1.1979 (Ann.K) of the Asstt. Collector Baran to the extent it decided the question of validity of transfer in favour of the respondent No. 5; (b) declare 30 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land in dispute transferred by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 5 in the year 1958 as recognised under Section 30DD of Chapter IIIB of the Tenancy Act thereby to that extent the land is liable to be deducted from total holdings of the petitioner and thereafter the ceiling area be determined.