RAMCHANDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question of law arise in this petition, i.e. 'Whether the order passed by authorised officer of preparing draft statement Under Section 12(1) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Celing on Agricultural Holding Act 1973 (for short the New Ceiling Act) is an Interim order or a final order ?' 'Whether interim orders can be reopened by the State Government in exercise of its powers Under Section 15 of the New Ceiling Act ?'

(2.) THE proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Old Ceiling Act were dropped on 22.1.1973 by the S.D.O. Bali. Thereafter on coming into force the New Ceiling Act the petitioner filed his declaration on 30.4.1973 which was registered before the S.D.O. cum -authorised officer, Bali, who by his order dt. 21.1.1975 (Annexure 2) ordered that the draft statement be issued Under Section 12(1) of the New Ceiling Act. Pursuance to that order, draft statement was prepared and published on 30.1.1975 (Annexure - 3). Therefore, the petitioner withdrew his objections and not only that he surrender his surplus land to the State Government on 20.9.1975. Thereafter, the authorised officer prepared and published final statement Under Section 13 of the New Celing Act. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 26.6.1979 (Annexure -8) against the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the case should not be reopened by the State Government in exercise of its powers Under Section 15 of the New Ceiling Act as they found that the order passed by the S.D.O. on 21.1.1975 (Annexure -2) was not in accordance with law. Reply to the notice was given on 22.12.1979 (Annexure -9). Thereafter the State Government by an order dt. 20.10.1981 (Annexure -17) decided to reopen the case Under Section 15(1) of the New Ceiling Act against the order dt. 21.1.1975 passed by the S.D.O. Surprisingly the same was communicated to the petitioner only in 1987 by notice dt. 6.7.1987 and the petitioner was called upon to remain present on 12.8.1987 before the Additional Collector, Pali. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order at Annexure -17 before this Court by way of this writ petition on several grounds raised in the petition.