KUNDAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was holding agricultural land as a Khatedar tenant and as he failed to file a return under Sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act"), notice under Sec. 11(1) of the Act was served upon him. On receiving the afore said notice, the petitioner filed a return and the Sub Divisional Officer, Sri Ganganagar held that out of 48 bighas and 14 biswas of land, the petitioner had sold 24 bighas and 14 biswas land to two persons. Navratanmal and Chainroop on February 22, 1972 and now he had only 24 bighas of land left to him. The Sub Divisional Officer held that the aforesaid sale transactions were of bonafide nature and dropped the proceedings under the Act, by his order dated December 17, 1974.

(2.) The State preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer before the Additional Collector, Sri Ganganagar and the real facts relating to the aforesaid sales made by the petitioner were disclosed namely, that the alleged sales of 24 bighas and 14 biswas land were effected by the petitioner to his real brothers, Navratanmal and Chainroop, by sale deeds dated March 22, 1972. The Collector held that the aforesaid sales by the petitioner to his real brothers at such time could not be considered as bona fide transactions and, therefore, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was set aside and he was directed to take further proceedings in the matter under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board by its order dated May 14, 1976 took the view that the proceedings were dropped by the Sub Divisional Officer under Sec. 12(1) of the Act and no appeal lay to the Collector therefrom. It was, however, held by the Board that the Sab Divisional Officer was competent to take proceedings under Sec. 23A of the Act or the State Government could take action under Sec. 15(1) of the Act. The Board also directed that, for the purposes of taking proceedings under Sec. 23A of the Act, limitation shall begin to run from the date of the order of the Board, by which the matter was finally adjudicated.

(3.) The State thereupon moved a review application under Sec. 23A of the Act before the Sub Divisional Officer, of which due notice was given to the petitioner. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the review application was barred by limitation which was repelled by the Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that limitation started running from the date of the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The Sub Divisional Officer passed an order reopenings the proceedings u/s. 23A & has started an inquiry, giving the petitioner an opportunity of producing his evidence. It is against this order of the Assistant Collector (Ceiling), Sri Ganganagar dated January 7, 1977 that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.