SRI KISHAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of Board of Revenue dated 14.2.1980 Ex. 3, whereby the learned Member of the Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the order of the Additional Collector dated 6.2.79. The learned Addl. Collector dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the authorised officer dated 23rd June, 1977. A few relevant facts may briefly be noted.

(2.) THE Authorised Officer, Ganganagar initiated proceedings against the present petitioner under the Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1973. He however dropped the proceedings u/sec. 12 (1) on 17.12.74 and did not issue any draft statement as in his opinion the assessee did not hold any excess land over the ceiling limit. An appeal against that order was preferred before the Additional Collector which was allowed and the authorised officer was directed to prepare a final statement u/sec. 13 and to acquire the surplus land. THE present petitioner went in appeal before the Board of Revenue. THE Board of Revenue vide its order dated 30.4.76 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Addl. Collector and it was held that as there was no order passed u/s. 12 (3) of the Act, the appeal before the Addl. Collector was incompetent. However, the Board of Revenue observed that the authorised officer could proceed under section 23A of the Act exercising power of review. After the judgment of the Board of Revenue, the. Tehsildar submitted an application on 3.7.76 u/sec. 23A of the Act for reviewing the order whereby proceedings were dropped and draft statement was not issued. That application was allowed and ceiling area was determined vide order dated 23rd June, 1977 Ex.1. THE old ceiling law was applied having regard to second proviso to Section 4 (1) and on that basis it was found that the petitioner can retain land to the extent of 46 Bighas 8 Biswas and he was required to surrender the excess land measuring 3 Bighas 12 biswas for which a direction was given for exercising option. THE petitioner was unsuccessful in the first appel before the Additional Collector and also before the Board of Revenue vide orders dated 6.2.79 and 14.2.80.

(3.) SECTION 301 contains a provision relating to exception of a general character and sub-section (2) thereof provides that if the land in excess of the ceiling area is only a fragment, the S.D.O. may allow the person holding it to retain possession thereof unless such fragment can be utilised. Such a provision in our opinion does not stand incorporated under the 1973 Act. The provision of sub-section (2) of Sec. 301 thus cannot be read in the second proviso to subsection 1 of SECTION 4. Only to the extent of the provision relating to ceiling area, the repealed law will apply and all the provisions of the repealed law, particularly the provision contained in SECTION 30 I would not apply, as such there is no right of retention of excess land over and above the ceiling area under the new law.