1/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7002/2005 State of Rajasthan and anr. versus Mandhata Singh and anr. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.O.P.Boob, for the petitioner Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the respondents REPORTABLE DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13th February, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The State Government has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29.3.2004 whereby the Board of Revenue held that the application filed by the respondent Mandhata Singh S/O Sangram Singh for compensation under the Ceiling Law should be treated as filed within limitation and directed the competent authority to decide the amount of compensation in 2/10 accordance with provisions of Section 19(3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Rajasthan (Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Land) Act, 1973. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners – State has urged that the application for compensation filed by the respondents on 9.7.2001 before SDO, Bhim was filed after approximately 20 years of the order passed by the SDO, Bhim under the old Ceiling Act on 27.11.1981 in Case no.14/1964 and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to be paid said compensation. He has supported the order passed by the SDO on 21.12.2002 rejecting the said claim of compensation which was upheld by the Dist. Collector, Rajsamand vide his order dated 16.5.2003. The respondent had filed an appeal against these two orders before the Board of Revenue which came to be allowed by the Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 29.3.2004 holding that said application could not be held to be time barred. 4. On the side opposite, Mr. Manish Shishodia, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed that in para 9 of the impugned order dated 29.4.2003, the learned Board of Revenue has clearly noticed that the said respondent had already filed an application for compensation under the provisions of Section 30E of the old Ceiling Law and SDO, Bhim had even obtained report of 3/10 Tehsildar about the surplus land acquired from the respondent under the provisions of Section 30E of the said Act. The learned Board of Revenue has also noticed from proceedings of case no.14/1964 that the appellant – present respondent in this writ petition had filed the said application along with annexures. This fact was also confirmed in the letter of Tehsildar dated 18.6.2001 that the proceedings against the present respondent had concluded under the old Ceiling law and if the SDO, Bhim intends to undertake proceedings for compensation under the new Ceiling Law, the present land owner i.e. Tehsildar has no objection. When the compensation proceedings under the new law were to be concluded by the SDO, Bhim, the authorized officer under the new Ceiling Law on 21.12.2000, two days prior to that, on an objection filed by the Government pleader before the SDO, Bhim on 19.12.2000 raising objection that the application for compensation was filed by the respondent belatedly, the impugned order dated 21.12.2000 was passed by the learned SDO, Bhim holding the claim to be time barred and thus, rejecting the said claim. The said order as already observed was upheld by the Collector, Rajsamand by his order dated 16.5.2003. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4/10 6. The Scheme of new Ceiling Law contained in 1973 Act may be briefly seen here. 7. After defining the relevant terms and providing for maximum ceiling of land, which can be held by the land owner, the said Act of 1973 provides in Section 10 about filing of returns by persons holding land in excess of ceiling. Section 11 pertains to collection of information about the said excess land. Section 11A permits filing of a return after prescribed time or supplementary return. Section 11B provides for procedure for disposal of returns or supplementary returns filed under Section 11A of the Act. Section 12 stipulates preparation and publication of draft statement as regards land in excess of ceiling area. Thereafter Section 13 provides for publication of final statement after disposal of objections if any preferred under Section 12, by the authorised Officer. Section 14 permits rectification of bonafide mistake and clerical errors. Section 15 relates to power to reopen cases. 8. Section 16 of the Act deals with vesting of surplus land in the State Government. Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 stipulates that as from the date of service of the final statement on a person, the surplus 5/10 land by him and shown in the final statement shall be deemed to have been acquired by the State Governemnt and the same shall from the said date vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 provides that when any land is vested in the State Government under sub-section (1), the person holding such land shall within thirty days from the date of vesting surrender or deliver its possession to the State Government by placing it at disposal of the Tehsildar within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such land is situated. 9. Section 17 deals with restriction on future acquisition and prohibits any person on and from the commencement of this Act to acquire by purchase, gift, mortgage, assignment , lease, surrender, devolution, bequest or otherwise any land so as to affect an increase in the extent of his holding over the ceiling area applicable to him. 10. Section 18 of the Act provides that a person holding or acquiring land in excess of ceiling area applicable to him shall have the right to select any land within the ceiling limit which he wants to retain in his possession. 6/10 11. Chapter -III relating to Amount of Acquisition contained in Section 19 is relevant for the present purpose and therefore, sub- Section (1) and (2) of Section 19 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “19.Determination of amount of acquisition:- The State Government shall be liable to pay the amount of acquisition for all lands vesting in it under Section 16 to the person upon whom the final statement was served. (2) Every such person shall within thirty days from the vesting of land in the State Government or within such extended time as may be allowed by the Authorised Officer submit to the authorised officer a detailed statement of claim for the amount of acquisition in such form as may be prescribed.” 12. A perusal of these provisions indicates that the State Government is liable to pay amount of acquisition for all the lands vesting in it under Section 16 to the person upon whom final statement was served. To begin the process of determination of 7/10 compensation and payment thereof, such person person is expected to file his claim within 30 days from the vesting of land in the State Government and withing such extended time as may be allowed by the authorised officer in such form as may be prescribed. Thereafter the authorised officer has to obtain report from the concerned Tehsildar and the amount of compensation has to be determined as per rate given under Sub-section (4) of Section 19. Sub-Section (5) of Section 19 provides that the amount of acquisition determined under sub-section (3) shall be paid in cash or in bonds or partly in cash and partly in bonds as may be prescribed. Sub-section (6) of Section 19 provides that the amount of acquisition shall carry simple interest at two and a half percent, per annum from the date of surrender of surplus land under sub-section (2) of Section 16 or of ejectment therefrom under sub-section (3) of that section as the case may be, till the date of payment. Thus, it is the duty and obligation of the State Government who acquires the surplus land under the Ceiling law to pay such compensation for surplus land acquired by it after following procedure as prescribed under the ceiling law. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner - State that since in the present case, the application was not filed within stipulated period of 30 days or extended period, the same having been 8/10 filed on 9.7.2001 after a delay of 20 years, is misconceived. In the present case, as observed above, the Board of Revenue has clearly noticed in para 9 of its order that under the old Ceiling Law itself, the respondent had filed his application along with the relevant documents of surplus land under Section 30E of the Act and the report in this regard was also obtained by the SDO, Bhim from the concerned Tehsildar, which is akin to the provisions of Section 19(3) of the new law contained in 1973 Act. The application dated 9.7.2001 as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be said to be a new application under the new Ceiling Law under 1973Act and merely because new Act was enacted, earlier application filed by the respondent as noticed by the learned Board of Revenue cannot be said to have become nonest or non-existing. 14. The learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out as to how that application filed under the old Ceiling Law came to be decided. The new Application dated 9.7.2001 can at best be treated in continuation of old application or a sort of reminder to the authorised Officer to determine the amount of compensation in question under the new Ceiling Law, which is required to be paid to the land owner whose surplus land is acquired by the State Government. It is not initiation of new proceedings under the new Ceiling Law under 1973 9/10 Act that said application should be held to be time barred or filed belatedly after lapse of about 20 years, nor the respondent can be said to be guilty of any delay and laches after the order was passed under the old Ceiling Law against him on 27.11.1981 in case No.14/1964 holding that 1071 bighas of land = 562.8 acres was surplus land and was required to be acquired by the State Government under the old Ceiling Law. The fact of said application for compensation filed by the respondent under the old Ceiling law as noticed in para 9 of the order of the Board of Revenue has not been rebutted or denied by the State Government nor there is any occasion to do so. Merely because proceedings for determination of compensation were undertaken under the new Ceiling Law in accordance with Section 19 of the said Act, the application dated 9.7.2001 cannot be said to be fresh initiation of proceeding at the end of the respondent in the present case. 15. In view of this, the findings of the Board of Revenue in concluding part of its impugned order in para 12 that the application has to be treated as filed within limitation and therefore, the proceedings for determination of amount of compensation and payment thereof should be undertaken, are found to be unassailable. The present writ petition filed by the petitioners is, therefore, devoid 10/10 of merit and the same is dismissed. The SDO, Bhim is directed to proceed with further proceedings for determination and payment of amount of compensation expeditiously which should be concluded within a period of three months from today. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.24 Ss/-