Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Late Hanuman Singh vs B.O.R. & Ors on 24 November, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 822 / 1997
LRS OF LATE HANUMAN SINGH
1/1 Smt. Gumani Devi W/o Late Hanuman
Singh, aged about 76 years,
1/2 Anand Singh S/o Late Hanuman Singh aged
about 56 years,
1/3 Moti Singh S/o Late Hanuman Singh Babulal,
aged about 53 years,
1/4 Mahendra Choudhary S/o Late Hanuman
Singh Babulal, aged about 42 years,
(All by caste Jat, resident of marajpura Post
Bhagwan pura Tehsil Nawa, District Nagour).
1/5 Sushila, aged about 50 yeard D/o Late
Hanuman Singh, W/o Shri Jagdish Choudhary A-44,
Karni Nagar Bikaner.
1/6 Om Devi aged about 47 years D/o Late
Hanuman Singh W/o Shri Narain Lal Deora, D-204,
Pital Factory, Bani Park, Jaipur.
1/7 Saroj aged about 44 years D/o Late
Hanuman Singh, W/o Shri Jagveer Singh, C-95,
Shastri Nagar Shyam Marg, Jaipur.
(2 of 5)
[CW-822/1997]
1/8 Prem aged about 41 years D/o Late
Hanuman Singh W/o Shri Sarwan Ram, Jagdish
Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
1/9 Poonam Devi aged about 38 years D/o Late
Hanuman Singh W/o Shri Sanjay R/o Pawera Tehsil
Narnil District Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer.
2. The Additional Collector, Nagour.
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sunil Beniwal
Mr. I.R. Choudhary
For Respondents : Mr. O.P. Boob-GC
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Order 24/11/2016 The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.10.1995 (Annexure-13) and 07.10.1996 (Annexure-14) passed by the Additional (3 of 5) [CW-822/1997] Collector Nagour and Board of Revenue, Ajmer respectively; with a further direction to the respondents to recognize the sale deeds executed by the petitioner and his father in the name of different persons as well as to recognize the share of petitioners mother in the ancestral land of the petitioner and his family members.
The facts in short are that the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner under the Old Ceilling Law were dropped vide order dated 26.02.1971 (Annexure-7) passed by the duly authorized officer. Thereafter, in the year 1971, the State Government issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 15(2) of the Land Ceilling Act to reopen the ceilling case. However, the proceedings were dropped even under the new Ceilling Act by an authorized officer in case No 3/74 vide order dated 27.05.1975. A copy of the letter dated 12.07.1977 supplied by the sub divisional officer, parbatsar providing the list of the cases in which the proceedings have been dropped, is placed on record as Annexure-15. Thus, it is evident that the proceedings started against the petitioner were dropped by the authorized officer both under the old and new Ceilling law.
The question as to whether the proceedings (4 of 5) [CW-822/1997] under Section 15(2) of the Act of 1973 could have been reopened, has been settled by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Pari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 RLW 320 and Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sahas Karan Vs State of Rajasthan & ors. , reported in 2015 (1) RRT 85.
Learned counsel for the respondent while vehemently opposing the petition submitted that the judgment would apply only in case the matter was reopened twice under the new law.
The said argument cannot be sustained in view of the settled proposition of law which was laid down in the case of Smt. Pari Devi (supra) and Full Bench decision in the case of Sahas Karan (supra). In the case of Pari Devi, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner one under the old Ceilling Law and the other under the new Ceilling Law. Thus, the action of the State Government in proceeding under Section 15(2) of the new Ceilling Law for the second time was set aside. The said view has been upheld by Full Bench in the case of Sahas Karan (supra).
In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that the controversy involved is no more res integra and is covered by the Full Bench decision in the case of Sahas Karan (supra).
(5 of 5) [CW-822/1997] The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dated 19.10.1995 passed by Additional Collector, Nagour and order dated 07.10.1996 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer are set aside.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR)J. arvind/04