Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Yatindra Singh
VISHWANATH - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 4229 Of 1978
Decided On : 01/07/2004
Compensation Statement - Challenge in Separate Proceedings - UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 240-J, Section 240-F - The court discussed the finality of the compensation statement under Chapter IX-A of the Act and the conditions under which it can be challenged in separate or collateral proceedings. It referred to the Avdhesh Singh case and concluded that the compensation statement can be challenged in a separate proceeding if the provisions of the Act are not followed or if it was prepared in disregard of judicial procedure. The court also highlighted the importance of serving the preliminary compensation statement on the landholder and the necessity of recording findings on the issues of partition and identification of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The contesting respondents filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner under the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The petitioner claimed to be Asami of the property in dispute under section 21 (1) (h) of the Act and challenged the compensation statement prepared under chapter IX-A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation statement can be challenged in a separate proceeding if the provisions of the Act are not followed or if it was prepared in disregard of judicial procedure. It remanded the case back to the first appellate court to record necessary findings and decide the appeal in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issues were whether the compensation statement prepared under chapter IX-A of the Act can be challenged in separate proceedings, whether there was partition amongst the landholders, and whether the property in dispute was identifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation statement can be challenged in a separate proceeding if the provisions of the Act are not followed or if it was prepared in disregard of judicial procedure. It emphasized the importance of serving the preliminary compensation statement on the landholder and the necessity of recording findings on the issues of partition and identification of the property.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, and the case was remanded back to the first appellate court for recording necessary findings and deciding the appeal in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THE main question in this writ petition is, whether the compensation statement prepared under chapter IX-A (Conferment of Sirdari Rights on Adhivasi) under UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act) can be challenged in separate proceedings namely the suit as in this case. THE FACTS
( 2 ) RESPONDENT no. 3 to 5 (the contesting respondents) filed a suit on 11. 10. 1955 against the petitioner under section 202 of the Act for his ejectment. The allegations in substance are that: The property in dispute came in the share of their father Gopal Das in private partition and he was a person falling in one or more classes of section157 of the Act (that is a disabled person ). The property in dispute was let out to the petitioner in 1353 F and on that date the petitioners were minors consequently disabled persons. After abolition of Zamindari, the petitioner became Asami of the property in dispute under section 21 (1) (h) of the Act. The petitioner is wrongly recorded as Sirdar, the record may be corrected and he may be evicted from the property in dispute.
( 3 ) THE petitioner filed his written statement on 15. 12. 1955. In substance the allegations are that: Gopal Das, Pursottam and Gaya Prasad (the landholders) were the chief tenants of the property in dispute and the petitioner was their sub-tenant. There was neither any partition amongst the landholders nor were they disabled persons. Suraj Prasad (Respondent no. 3) was not a minor and not disabled person. The petitioner being sub-tenant became Adhivasi and Sirdar under section 20 (1) (a) of the Act and Section 21 (1) (h) was not applicable. The property in dispute was not identifiable on the spot and suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
( 4 ) THE petitioner filed an additional written statement on 22. 11. 1960. Leave to file it was allowed on the same date. The petitioner alleged that: The compensation statement has been prepared under chapter IX-A of the Act and the contesting respondents have lifted the compensation. The decision in those proceedings was resjudicata, The contesting respondents have lost all rights and title over property in dispute and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) DURING pendency of the suit, the proceeding for preparation of compensation statement under chapter IX-A of the Act was undertaken. A compensation statement was prepared under section 240-D and was published under section 240-F in the official gazette on 8. 9. 1956. No objection was filed and it was finalised on 10. 4. 1957. There was a clerical error in the official gazette dated 8. 9. 1956 relating to name of the Pargana where the village was situate and a correction was published on 5. 4. 1958. The contesting respondents filed an objection under section 240-G of the Act on 7. 12. 1960 on the ground that: No notice was given to them. They had no knowledge about the compensation statement. They came to know about the same on 22. 11. 1960 when additional written statement was filed in the suit. The contesting respondents sought condonation of delay and decision on merits.
( 6 ) THE compensation officer rejected the objection of the contesting respondents on 3. 6. 1964 as barred by time. The contesting respondents filed an appeal on 9. 4. 1964. This appeal was allowed on 9. 10. 1964 and the case was remanded for decision on merits. The appellate court recorded the following findings: The contesting respondents had no notice of compensation statement. They came to know about compensation statement on 22. 11. 1960 and their application was within time.
( 7 ) THE petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. This revision was allowed on 31. 1. 1969 on the finding that objection was to be filed within one month of the date of publication of the compensation statement and as it was not filed within time, the objection was barred by time. The petitioner did not file any writ petition against the order however, the proceeding in the
AI
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
