Repeal and re-enactment in ceiling law: pending proceedings continue where rights and liabilities crystallise under the old statute.

On repeal and re-enactment, pending ceiling proceedings under the former Rajasthan Tenancy Act were held to continue because the later ceiling statute did not show a contrary intention to exclude the general saving rule. The scheme of the 1973 enactment, including limited saving provisions and treatment of pending matters, indicated that the repealed law survived for saved purposes. The State's right and the landholders' liability crystallised on the notified date under the old law, with only quantification remaining, so surplus-land determination related back to that date. The old ceiling provisions therefore applied to the pending matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the repeal of Section 5(6A) and Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 evinced an intention to exclude the operation of Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 so as to prevent pending ceiling proceedings from being continued under the repealed law; (ii) Whether, even if the repealed law was otherwise saved, the State had no accrued right and the landholders had no incurred liability in relation to ceiling determination so as to make the old law inapplicable after repeal.

Issue (i): Whether the repeal of Section 5(6A) and Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 evinced an intention to exclude the operation of Section 6 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 so as to prevent pending ceiling proceedings from being continued under the repealed law.

Analysis: The later enactment did not manifest a contrary intention sufficient to displace the ordinary saving consequence of repeal. The scheme of the 1973 Act, including the limited saving in Section 40, the special treatment of pending matters in Section 15(2), and the proviso in Section 4(1), showed that the earlier ceiling law was not wholly effaced for pending matters. The non obstante clause in Section 3 did not override a law deemed to continue for saved purposes. The repeal was therefore to be read with the saving principles under the General Clauses Act.

Conclusion: The old ceiling provisions were saved for pending cases, and proceedings could validly continue under the repealed law.

Issue (ii): Whether, even if the repealed law was otherwise saved, the State had no accrued right and the landholders had no incurred liability in relation to ceiling determination so as to make the old law inapplicable after repeal.

Analysis: The right of the State and the corresponding liability of the landholder crystallised on the notified date fixed under the old law; only quantification remained. The process of determining surplus land was an investigation into the extent of an already existing right, not into whether any right should arise at all. The liability to surrender excess land related back to the appointed date, and the statutory scheme of the repealed Act supported that conclusion.

Conclusion: The State had an accrued right and the landholders had incurred liability under the old law, so the repealed provisions applied to the pending proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The challenges to the continuation of ceiling proceedings under the repealed Rajasthan Tenancy Act provisions failed, and the Supreme Court upheld the applicability of the old law to the pending matters.

Ratio Decidendi: On repeal and re-enactment, pending proceedings remain governed by the repealed law where the later statute does not evince a contrary intention, and a right or liability that crystallises on the appointed date is an accrued right or incurred liability saved by the general saving clause.

---