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.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.