1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 912 of 1997 STATE & ANR V/S ISHWAR SINGH & ANR Mr. OP BOOB, GOVT. COUNSEL, for the appellant Mr. MK GARG, for the respondent Date of Order : 16.5.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 10.7.1997 accepting the writ petition on the basis of judgment of this Court in Pari Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 RLW-75. It is contended that in view of the judgment of this Court in Rajeshwar Singh Vs. SDO, Amber reported 1981 RLW-561, and Ram Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1989(1) RLW-670, which have been considered by this Court in other appeals filed against the same orders being Appeal Nos. 907/97, 908/97, 915/97, and 08/98 which have been decided on 8.5.2008 wherein it has been found that the judgment in Pari Devi's case is not a good law, and therefore, the impugned judgment is required to be set aside. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even apart from Pari Devi's 2 judgment in the present case it is writ large that ceiling proceedings were decided under the old law way back on 10.12.1970 while reopening order was passed on 12.11.1982, and according to the learned counsel the proceedings are time barred in view of the second proviso to Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. We have considered the submissions, and perused the judgments cited at bar. As a matter of fact, this matter is on the board since 5.5.2008. On 8.5.2008, on which date the other appeals were decided, when this matter was taken up, this aspect was highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondent, and therefore, the learned counsel for the State was directed to inform the date of issue of notice under Section 15(2) before passing of the reopening order dt. 12.11.1982, and since then the matter is continuing on board, but till today learned counsel has not been able to inform that the notice was issued within the prescribed time. We may gainfully quote the second proviso to Section 15(2) which reads as under:- “Provided further that no notice referred to in the foregoing proviso shall be issued after the expiry of seven years from the date of the final order sought to be re-opened or after the expiry of 30th day of June, 1979, whichever is later” In that view of the matter, on the face of the second proviso to Section 15(2), the proceedings 3 are barred, and therefore, could not be reopened. Accordingly, though for different reasons but we do not find any ground to interfere with the setting aside of the reopening of the proceeding. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that, if even now the learned counsel for the appellant is able to find out, the date of issuance of notice to be within the prescribed time, then it would be open to him to apply for review of this order, provided the review petition is filed within 30 days from today. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/