1. Compensation assessment under Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act — Dispute over reopening proceedings after compensation enhancement without notice to the State Government. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.
The Sub-Divisional Officer (Compensation Officer) Mirzapur and others, Appellants
Versus
Raja Srinivasa Prasad Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 751 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate (Mr. O. P. Rana Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. G. S. Pathak, Senior Advocate (M/s. B. Datta, C. S. P. Singh and S. N. Prasad, Advocates, and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji 1165 Advocate of M/s J. B. Dadachanji and co., with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.DUTTA, C.B.AGARWAL, C.S.P.SINGH, G.S.PATHAK, J.B.DADACHAN, O.P.RANA, S.N.PRASAD,
B.DUTTA, C.B.AGARWAL, C.S.P.SINGH, G.S.PATHAK, J.B.DADACHAN, O.P.RANA, S.N.PRASAD,
The State Government, as a necessary party and the paying entity in compensation proceedings, must be served a specific notice of objections. Proceedings conducted without such notice are not binding, and the presiding officer has inherent jurisdiction to reopen the case to ensure natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 46, 343, 47, 48-52 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Notice to State Government - State Government is deemed to be a party to every proceeding under the Act - General notice in the Gazette is insufficient; specific notice to the Collector is required under Section 343 - State Government, as the paying party, is a "person interested" - Proceedings conducted without notice to a necessary party are not binding on such party - Compensation Officer possesses inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen proceedings where a necessary party was not served notice. (Paras 8, 12)
(B) Writ of Prohibition - High Court erred in issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the authority from deciding on the reopening of proceedings - The authority has jurisdiction to determine whether to reopen the case after considering the facts and the claim of privilege. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
An intermediary filed objections to the draft compensation assessment rolls. No specific notice of the objections or the hearing date was served upon the State Government as required by law. Consequently, the compensation was enhanced and the final rolls were signed and sealed. The State Government later applied to reopen the proceedings, claiming it had no knowledge of the objections. The intermediary opposed this, asserting the finality of the rolls and claiming the State had knowledge through other officers. The High Court issued a writ of prohibition restraining the compensation officer from proceeding with the State's application to reopen the case.
Findings of Court:
The State Government must be joined as a party to proceedings for enhancement of compensation. A general Gazette notification does not substitute for a specific notice to the Collector. A decision reached without notice to a necessary party is not binding on that party. The compensation officer has the jurisdiction to decide whether to reopen the proceedings and to determine claims of privilege regarding documents.
Issues: Whether the State Government was entitled to a specific notice of the hearing of objections despite the general Gazette notification, and whether the compensation officer had the jurisdiction to reopen proceedings after the final rolls were signed and sealed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 343 of the Act mandates that the State Government be a party to every proceeding. Since the State is the party paying the compensation, it is a "person interested." Failure to serve a specific notice to the Collector renders the proceedings non-binding on the State. The inherent powers of a court or tribunal allow for the reopening of proceedings which proceeded ex parte because a notice was not sent to a necessary party.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; writ of prohibition dissolved.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. State claims entitlement to notice as a deemed party under Section 343 — Respondent contends Gazette notification suffices and final compensation rolls cannot be reopened. (Para 3 , 7 )
3. Section 343 requires the State to be joined as a party and served specific notice via the Collector; Gazette notification is insufficient for a necessary party. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Proceedings conducted without notice to a necessary party are not binding, and tribunals possess inherent jurisdiction to reopen such ex parte proceedings to ensure natural justice. (Para 12 )
5. Writ of prohibition dissolved — Compensation Officer directed to determine the application for reopening proceedings and decide on the claim of privilege. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. What is the legal effect of the State Government being deemed a party under Section 343 of the Act?
It means the State must be joined as a party to every proceeding and is entitled to specific notice. It also allows the State to intervene in proceedings even if not formally joined. (Para 8 )
7. Is a general Gazette notification sufficient to serve notice to the State Government in compensation proceedings?
No. Under Section 343, any notice intended for the State Government must be served specifically on the Collector or a nominated authority; a general Gazette notice does not constitute service. (Para 8 )
8. Can a tribunal reopen proceedings if a necessary party was not served notice?
Yes. A decision reached behind the back of a necessary party to whom notice must be sent is not binding, and the court or tribunal has the power to reopen the proceeding. (Para 12 )
9. Does a Compensation Officer have the power to set aside ex parte orders in the absence of specific review provisions in the Act?
Yes. Even if specific review provisions are absent, the inherent power conferred by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is available to the Compensation Officer to set aside such orders. (Para 11 , 12 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 133 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 123 of 1961, dated November 21, 1961. By the judgment under appeal the Divisional Bench reversing the decision of a learned single Judge of that Court accepted a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the present respondent in the following circumstances.
2. The respondent Raja Sri Niwas Prasad Singh owned extensive zamindari interests in tahsils Mirzapur and Chunar of Mirzapur District in Uttar Pradesh. The present dispute concerns the assessment of compensation to which the Raja became entitled under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U. P. Act I of 1951) from July 1, 1952. Under that Act the proprietary interest of the Raja in the Zamindari properties situated in the two tahsils vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Sub-Divisional Officers of Mirzapur and Chunar Tehsils, who were functioning as Compensation Officers under the Act, prepared draft Compensation Assessment Rolls and they were notified in the official Gazette as required by Cl. (a) of S. 46 (1) of the Act. A copy of the notice was also served on the Raja along with a copy of the draft Compensation Assessment Rolls as required by Cl. (b). The Raja filed objections to the draft Rolls, contending that the amount of compensation should have been higher than what was fixed. It is an admitted fact that no notice of the objections filed by the Raja was given to the State of Uttar Pradesh; nor was sent any intimation of the date of hearing. The State Government had, however, issued a notification [No. 145 Z.A.C.-5/158 (1953)] on July 29, 1953 instructing all District Officers that in objection cases in which it was deemed necessary to arrange for the State Government to be represented before the Compensation Officers, the District Officers should specifically authorise the Zamindari Abolition Naib Tahasildars to plead on behalf of the State Government. No special authorisation in terms of the notification was, however, issued in the present case, although the Naib Tahsildars without authorisation appeared as a matter of course. As a result of the objections, the Compensation awardable to the Raja for his zamindari interest in Mirzapur Tahsil was enhanced by about Rs. 3,01,348-50. The compensation in respect of his interest in Chunar Tahsil was also substantially enhanced. The final Compensation Rolls were then signed and sealed on various dates, the last being January 31, 1955 in the Mirzapur case and December 13, 1954 in the Chunar case. The Raja received the bonds in respect of the original compensation and also a part of the enhanced compensation. A sum of over rupees three lakhs remains still to be paid.
3. On August 22, 1955 the State of Uttar Pradesh filed two applications before the Compensation Officers at Mirzapur and Chunar praying that the objection cases be re-opened and the State Government given a hearing. The main ground on which the State Government claimed to have the proceedings re-opened was that notices of the objections were not issued to the State Government as required by the Act and that the State Government, having no knowledge of the objections, could not appear and contest the case set up by the Raja. The State Government claimed that the final Compensation Rolls were not binding upon it. The State Government averred that information about the revision of the Compensation Rolls was received by it for the first time on July 22, 1955 and the applications were moved immediately. The Raja opposed the application and alleged that the State Government had knowledge of the proceedings and had actually participated in them before the Compensation Officers through its Naib Tahsildars. He urged that the Compensation Rolls had become final and could not be reopened. The Raja also stated that the State Government and its officer
