Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Satyeshwar Roy, J.
Chintamani Sharan Nath Sahadeo
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 540 of 1983 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 13, 1989
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SEC. 25(4) - Compensation assessment for intermediary interests vested in the State - Computation of compensation for mines and minerals - Interpretation of amended and unamended provisions - Acceptance of compensation without objection - Jurisdiction of Compensation Officer and Board of Revenue - Principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a proprietor whose intermediary interests vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, challenged the re-opening of his compensation case and the directive to refund excess compensation paid to him. The petitioner claimed that the compensation assessment for mines and minerals should have been done as per the unamended Section 25(4) of the Act, which provided for agreement or reference to a Mines Tribunal. The State contended that the amended Section 25(4) applied, which prescribed a different method of computation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner had accepted the compensation assessments without objection, both the initial assessment and the revised assessment that included compensation for mines and minerals. The Court found that the petitioner's applications under Sections 30 and 30A of the Act, seeking correction or fresh preparation of the compensation assessment roll, were not maintainable as the petitioner had already accepted the compensation and the time for objection or appeal had passed.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended or unamended Section 25(4) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 applied to the computation of compensation for mines and minerals. 2. Whether the petitioner's acceptance of the compensation assessments without objection barred him from seeking correction or fresh preparation of the assessment roll. 3. Whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Compensation Officer suo motu.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the unamended Section 25(4) applied to the petitioner's case as the amendment was not retrospective. However, the Court found that the petitioner had accepted the compensation assessment, including that for mines and minerals, without objection. This acceptance constituted an agreement between the petitioner and the Compensation Officer, as provided in the unamended Section 25(4). 2. The Court held that the petitioner's acceptance of the compensation assessments without objection barred him from seeking correction or fresh preparation of the assessment roll under Sections 30 and 30A of the Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had not raised any objection to the assessments before they were finalized and that he had received the compensation amounts. 3. The Court declined to decide whether the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Compensation Officer suo motu, as it found that the order of the Board of Revenue, even if without jurisdiction, had corrected the improper order of the Compensation Officer and achieved justice.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's acceptance of the compensation assessments without objection barred him from seeking correction or fresh preparation of the assessment roll, and that the Board of Revenue's order, though potentially without jurisdiction, had achieved justice by correcting the improper order of the Compensation Officer.
1. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing annexure-9 order dated 14-3-1983 by which respondent No. 2, Member Board of Revenue, directed that compensation case of the petitioner under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act for short) be re-opened and the petitioner be noticed to refund the excess compensation of Rupees twenty five lakhs eighty seven thousand and three hundred paid to him. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing annexure-10, notice dated 23-3-1983 issued by respondent No. 3, Deputy Commissioner, asking the petitioner to refund the aforesaid sum. The petitioner filed an application on 4-10-1983 for amendment of the writ petition and in that he challenged the validity of the certificate case levied for recovery of the amount. That was allowed. The validity of the certificate case No. 6M of 1983-84 is also under challenge.
2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is a proprietor within the meaning of the Act. His interest in the estate including the subsisting lease of mines and minerals, under which he was the lessor, vested in the State of Bihar. A proceeding for payment of compensation to the petitioner was initiated under Chapter-V of the Act. That was registered as Compensation Case No. 1 / R/8 of 1951-52. Assessment roll dated 12-6-1978 was finally published u/s. 28 of the Act for a sum of Rupees four lakhs twenty five thousand five hundred twenty seven and paise fifty as evidenced by annexure-A to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Payment was made u/s. 32 of the Act to the petitioner in the form of bond and he accepted it.
3. On an application filed by the petitioner (annexure-4) assessment roll was revised and a fresh roll was prepared on 3-11-1979, copy of which is annexure-5 to the writ petition and total compensation assessed was Rs. 46,66,014..76 calculated at three times net annual income. This included the amount of Rupees four lakhs and odd as shown in annexure-A. This amount in the form of bond was also received by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner made a grievance to the Additional Secretary, Revenue, by annexure-7. By letter dated 12-7-1980, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Patna, by annexure-6 enquired about it from respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that he should file affidavit if he, i.e. the petitioner, was ready and willing to accept the compensation for mines and minerals at the times of the net income. He did it. The case was again revised, compensation was assessed on that basis and paid to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 suo motu re-opened the compensation case of the petitioner and by the order as contained in annexure-9 held that the compensation so computed was contrary to sec. 25(4). He directed for issuance of notice to the petitioner for refund of the excess amount paid to him erroneously and in pursuance of that, as noticed above, annexure-10 was issued to the petitioner. This was followed by a certificate case.
5. Although in the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he accepted under protest the assessment of compensation both the first one as evidenced by annexure-A and the second one as evidenced by annexure-5, the respondents in the counter-affidavit have seriously disputed this.
6. Before I proceed to examine the provisions of the Act and the contentions of the parties, I may notice that the validity of annexure-9 was also challenged on the ground that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass the order.
7. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel that under the Act there is no provision which empowers respondent No. 2, Member Board of Revenue, to interfere with the order passed by the Compensation Officer under the Act and if the State was aggrieved by the order of the Compensation Officer, it should have sought remedy by filing an appeal. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the Board of Revenue constituted under the Bih
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
