STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. versus SMT. AMARJEET KAUR AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 12-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
v. 
SMT. AMARJEET KAUR AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 2002 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 197 3; 
Ss. 2(q) and 15(2)-Land of respondent-tenureholders determined under 
C Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and they were found not in possession of surplus 
land-Later, on coming into force of 197 3 Act, tenureholder found in possession 
of surplus /and-Deputy Secretary, uls 15(2) of 1973 Act, re-opening the order 
passed under 1955 Act, and directing Additional Collector to determine ceiling 
area-Held the effect of the provisions of 1973 Act is that where the ceiling 
D area determined under the said Act exceeds the ceiling area determined under 
1955 Act, it will be the lesser area that would be applicable to a person-
1973 Act places the Stale in an advantageous position irrespective of the 
extent of the ceiling area determined under 1955 Act or 1973 Act-Even if 
area determined under 1955 Act is more than that determined under 1973 Act, 
Stale alone will get advantage-Therefore, no useful purpose would be served 
E by re-opening the old proceedings-Appeals of land holders dismissed. 
State of Rajas than v. Prithvi Singh, (1986) R.L.R. 32; Sumitra Kaur v. 
Authorised Officer (SDO) and Ors., (1977) 27 l.L.R. 995 and Bansidhar v. 
State of Rajasthan, (1989) 2 SCC 557, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1520-22 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.3.1987 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1029 of 1986, I 054 of 1986 and 1056 
G of 1986. 
H 
WITH 
Contempt Petition (C) No. 220 of 1993. 
Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Appellants. 
62 
STATE v. AMARJEET KAUR 
63 
K.R. Sasiprabhu (N/P) for the contemnor. 
K.R. Gupta, R.C. Gubrele and Dinesh Sharma for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C.A.Nos. 1520-22 of 1994: 
The State of Rajasthan is in appeal against the common order of a 
Division Bench of the High Court ofRajasthan at Jaipur-in Civil Writ Petition 
Nos. 1029, 1054 and 1956 of 1986, dated March 9, 1987. 
A 
B 
The facts, insofar as they are relevant for our purpose, may briefly be C 
noted here. 
The respondents are landholders under the provisions of the Rajasthan 
Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act'). The holding of the respondents 
was determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran on January 14, 1971. 
It was found that the respondents did not possess surplus land. While so, the D 
Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for 
short, 'the 1973 Act') came into force on January 1, 1973. The lands held by 
the respondents were again subjected to enquiry under the I 973 Act and by 
order dated February 28, 1976, the authorised officer decided that the 
respondents were having surplus land. The respondents filed an appeal before E 
the Additional Collector, Kota-the appellate authority under the Act-who 
remanded the matter to the authorised officer. The authorised officer, after 
further enquiry, arrived at the same conclusion which was reflected in his 
order passed on February 28, I 976. The matter was again taken in appeal to 
the Additional Collector, Kota, who, by his order dated April 4, 1985, again 
remanded the case to the authorised officer for fresh consideration under the F 
1973 Act. While the matter was pending before the Assistant Collector, in 
exercise of the power conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the 
I 973 Act, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, reopened 
the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baran under the I 955 Act on 
January 14, 1971 and directed the Additional Collector, Kota to enquire into 
the matter and determine the ceiling area of the respondents. The Additional G 
Collector, accordingly, by order dated November 5, 1979, found that the 
lands held by the respondents were in excess of the ceiling limit. Against that 
· order, appeals were taken unsuccessfully to the Board of Revenue. It appears 
that a review petition was also filed by the respondents before the Board of 
Revenue but that also resulted in dismissal. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents H 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A filed three writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan. The High Court, 
by the order under challenge, quashed the orders of the Deputy Secretary, 
Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue insof
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.