1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3940/1997 (Ram Pratap Vs. State & Ors) Date of order : March 05th, 2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. S. Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, for the respondents. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.7.1997 (Annexure-1), so also prayed to prohibit the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of the order dated 1.9.1979 in case No.66/79 pending in the court of Additional Collector (Vig) Sri Ganganagar. Brief facts of the case are that after coming into force of provisions of Chapter-IIIrd B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the petitioner submitted a return before the S.D.O., Sri Ganganagar and vide order dated 8.12.70, the said authority gave the conclusion that the petitioner is not holding any surplus land, therefore, the proceedings were dropped. No appeal was filed against the above order, thus, the 2 order became final. Thereafter, when Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 was promulgated, the petitioner did not submit any return because he was not holding any surplus land but authorised officer issued a notice and proceeded against the petitioner under the new Act and after conducting required enquiry, the authorized officer, Sri Ganganagar came to the conclusion that no surplus land is held by the petitioner, therefore, vide order dated 19.4.75, the proceedings were dropped against the petitioner and no appeal was filed against the said order also. The petitioner's contention in the writ petition is that the provisions contained under Section 15 (1) of the Act of 1973 for reopening a case under the new law was also not exercised by the State Government. But later on the State Government by order dated 1.9.1979 passed under the provisions of section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 ordered that the case under the old ceiling law decided by the order dated 8.12.70 is hereby reopened and directed the Addl. Collector, Sri Ganganagar to decide the matter afresh. The petitioner while challenging the said order dated 1.9.1979 preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No.1343/79 (Ram Pratap Vs. State of Raj. & 3 Ors.). The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 4.4.1984 and while placing reliance of a decision in SB Civil Writ Petition No.353/81 (Mst. Pari Devi Vs. State) decided on 3.4.84 reported in 1984 R.L.W. 320, the order dated 1.9.1979 passed by the State Government under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 was set aside. The State Government went in appeal against the said judgment and appeal was also dismissed. The case of the petitioner is that on 12.12.1986, the copy of the order dated 4.4.1984 passed by this Court in above writ petition was submitted before the Addl. Collector, Sri Ganganagar and it was pointed out that the order dated 1.9.1979 has been set aside, therefore, the proceedings may be dropped but ignoring the prayer of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings, the Addl. Collector sought directions from the State Government. Although the action of the Addl. Collector seeking directions was unwarranted as there was no option with the Addl Collector except to drop the proceedings but he has sought directions from the State Government and refused to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. The Addl. Collector received directions from the State Government to continue the proceedings on the ground that Pari Devi's case stands over ruled in case of Ram Pratap (Ram gopal) Vs. State, reported in 4 1989 R.R.D. 310. The petitioner again submitted an application before the Addl. Collector that the proceedings cannot be continued so long as the judgment in the case of the petitioner passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1343/1979 is not set aside by this Hon'ble Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court but objection raised by the petitioner was over ruled and thereafter, an order dated 25.7.1997 was passed whereby the Addl. Collector ordered that the case of the petitioner shall be heard on merit upon reopening and will be deciding on merit. The petitioner's contention is that the order dated 4.4.1984 passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1343/79 is still in existence and has not been set aside by this Court or by Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, simply because the Pari Devi's case (supra) has been over ruled in Ram Pratap's case (supra), it does not mean that the order passed by this Court on 4.4.1984 has automatically been set aside and therefore, the respondents are entitled to reopen the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there is no ground for review of the order passed by this Court left with the Addl. Collector, so also, Addl Collector had no jurisdiction or the State Government has also got no jurisdiction to gave a finding that the judgment in petitioner's writ 5 petition passed by this Court stands set aside after the decision in case of Ram Gopal's case (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that till the judgment rendered in case of the petitioner exists, no reopening can be made, so also the respondents cannot proceed against the petitioner ignoring the judgment rendered by this Court, which is not yet set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards the judgment in case of Dhan Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr., reported in 2002 (2) R.R.T. 922 submitted that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as under : “Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners' father Lekhram was holding agricultural land and proceedings under Chapter-III-B of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 were initiated against them. After due inquiry Sub Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar dropped the proceedings by his order dated 29.3.1971. Subsequently, Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1973”) came into force and under Section 15 (2) of that Act the State Government directed the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar to reopen the case of late Shri Lekhram. While reopening of 6 the ceiling matter which was pending before the ADM, the reopening order was challenged by Lekhram by filing SB civil Writ Petition No.540/79 which was accepted vide Anx. 1 on 4.9.1984 relying upon Parn Devi vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 RLW 320. On the basis of order Anx. 1 Additional Collector, Sriganganagar also dropped reopening proceedings on 30.1.1985 vide order Anx. 2. 3. Subsequently, State Government by notification No. F1(4/7)/Raj./C/2137 dated 22.7.1986 directed for reopening of the ceiling matters under Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 resulting which vide order Anx. 3 dated 7.10.1995 against the ceiling matter was reopened which was dropped vide Anx. 2 relying on the judgment of the High Court Anx. 1. Hence this petition. 4. It is very surprising that vide impugned order Anx. 3 the ADM was reviewing not an order passed by the Additional Collector, Sriganganagar but an order Anx. 1 passed by a Single Bench of this Court and that too without any basis. Under third proviso of Section 15 (2) of the Act of 1973 no final order passed by the board in the matter referred to in sub-sec. (1) or sub- sec. (2) shall be directed to be reopened on account of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which has since come to its notice or due to some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Even assuming that reopening proceedings did not come to a logical end because it was dropped vide Anx. 1 order of this Court, the review, if at all should have been done by the High 7 Court itself. Consequently, there is merit in this petition. The same is accepted. The impugned order Anxx. 3 is set aside. The State Government if advised, may take steps for setting aside the the order Anxx. 1 passed by this Court.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition may also be allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the action taken by the respondent State is within the jurisdiction of the State Government to reopen the matter in the event of over ruling the judgment of Pari Devi's Case (supra) in case of Ram Gopal (supra). I have considered the rival submission made by both the parties and perused the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court as cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held in para 4 of the judgment in case of Dhan Raj (Supra) that after the judgment of High Court in the matter, the only power to review the judgment of the High Court vests with the High Court only and none else. Here, in this case, the judgment 8 rendered in case of petitioner by this Court still exists against which the Hon'ble Division Bench has also dismissed the special appeal filed by the State. Therefore, the Addl. Collector who has proceeded in the matter of reopening is not permissible under the law. Consequently, while following the aforesaid judgment in case of Dhan Raj & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. (supra), the impugned order Annexure-3 is hereby set aside and the State Government, if advised, may take steps for setting aside the judgment rendered by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.1343/1979 decided on 4.4.1984. The writ petition is allowed in above terms with no order as to costs. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun