Back
1961 Supreme(All) 209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. Srivastava and B. Dayal, JJ.
RAJA SRINIWAS PRASAD SINGH - Appellant
Versus
S.D.O. - Respondents
Special Appeal 123 Of 1960
Decided On : 11/21/1961
G.S.PATHAK, R.S.PATHAK, S.B.JOHARI
Headnote:
The appellant, an intermediary, filed objections to the draft compensation assessment rolls prepared by the compensation officer under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The State did not appear in response to the notice issued under Section 46 of the Act, and the objections were decided ex parte. The State subsequently applied for restoration of the objections, contending that it had not received notice of the objections and that the decisions on the objections were therefore void. The compensation officer entertained the applications and set aside the ex parte orders. The appellant challenged the compensation officer's jurisdiction to entertain the applications and sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the compensation officer from proceeding with the applications.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an intermediary, filed objections to the draft compensation assessment rolls prepared by the compensation officer under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The State did not appear in response to the notice issued under Section 46 of the Act, and the objections were decided ex parte. The State subsequently applied for restoration of the objections, contending that it had not received notice of the objections and that the decisions on the objections were therefore void. The compensation officer entertained the applications and set aside the ex parte orders. The appellant challenged the compensation officer's jurisdiction to entertain the applications and sought a writ of prohibition to restrain the compensation officer from proceeding with the applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the compensation officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State's applications for restoration of the objections. The court found that the State was not required to be served with a notice of the objections under Section 46 of the Act, and that even if such a notice was required, the final orders passed in respect of the objections could not be ignored and treated as void simply because the notices had not been issued. The court also found that the State had not pursued the remedies available to it to challenge the ex parte orders, and that it could not invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the compensation officer to rectify its own errors.
Issues: 1. Whether the compensation officer had jurisdiction to entertain the State's applications for restoration of the objections? 2. Whether the State was required to be served with a notice of the objections under Section 46 of the Act? 3. Whether the final orders passed in respect of the objections could be ignored and treated as void simply because the notices had not been issued? 4. Whether the State had pursued the remedies available to it to challenge the ex parte orders? 5. Whether the State could invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the compensation officer to rectify its own errors?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The compensation officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State's applications for restoration of the objections because: - The State was not required to be served with a notice of the objections under Section 46 of the Act. - Even if such a notice was required, the final orders passed in respect of the objections could not be ignored and treated as void simply because the notices had not been issued. - The State had not pursued the remedies available to it to challenge the ex parte orders. - The State could not invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the compensation officer to rectify its own errors. 2. The State was not required to be served with a notice of the objections under Section 46 of the Act because: - The State was a party to the proceedings before the compensation officer from the very start under Section 343 of the Act. - The State could have appeared in response to the notice issued under Section 46, but it chose not to do so. - The State was not entitled to a special notice of the objections under Section 47 of the Act because it had not appeared in response to the notice under Section 46. 3. The final orders passed in respect of the objections could not be ignored and treated as void simply because the notices had not been issued because: - The compensation officer had jurisdiction to decide the objections in the absence of the State. - The State had not challenged the ex parte orders in a timely manner. 4. The State had not pursued the remedies available to it to challenge the ex parte orders because: - The State could have filed an appeal against the ex parte orders under Section 50 of the Act. - The State could have filed an application for review of the ex parte orders under Section 114 of the C.P.C. 5. The State could not invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the compensation officer to rectify its own errors because: - The compensation officer had no inherent jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte orders. - The State had not shown that it had suffered any prejudice as a result of the ex parte orders.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned orders dated 31st March 1958 were quashed and a writ of prohibition was issued restraining the respondent No. 1 from proceeding with the applications for restoration filed by the respondent No. 2 on 22nd August 1955. The appellant was entitled to his costs from the respondent No. 2 both of the writ petition and this appeal.
( 1 ) THIS is a petitioners special appeal against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 2 ) PRIOR to the abolition of Zamindari in this State the appellant owned extensive zamindari interests in two tahsils of the Mirzapur district, viz. , Tahsil Mirzapur and Tahsil Chunar. On the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 with effect from the 1st July 1952 the State acquired all the proprietary interests of the appellant in his zamindari properties and under the provisions of the Act the appellant became entitled to compensation. The Sub-Divisional Officers of the Mirzapur and the Chunar tahsils who were functioning as compensation officers under the Act prepared draft compensation assessment rolls which were duly notified as required by the Act. The appellant filed objections to the draft rolls and contended that the amount of compensation payable to him should have been fixed at higher figures. According to the appellant, when these objections were heard by the compensation officers the State was represented by the Naib Tahsildars of the two tahsils but the allegation is not accepted on behalf of the State and the authority of the Naib Tahsildars to represent the State during the hearing of the objections is also disputed. It is, however, conceded that the compensation officers heard the various objections filed. The objections in respect of some villages were accepted while those in respect of other villages were rejected. As no appeals were preferred against the orders allowing the objections those orders became final. The compensation assessment rolls in respect of the villages lying in Tahsil Mirzapur were signed and sealed on various dates, the last date being 31st January 1955, and the total amount by which the appellants compensation in respect of the villages lying in that tahsil was enhanced was about Rupees 3,01,348/5/ -. The compensation rolls in respect of the villages lying in Tahsil chunar were also signed and sealed on various dates and the amount of compensation payable to the appellant was increased by several thousands. The compensation bonds in respect of the villages in the Chunar Tahsil were even handed over to the appellant by the 22nd July 1955. Some of the bonds to which the appellant became entitled in respect of his villages in Tahsil mirzapur were also received by him before the 22nd July 1955 but bonds worth about 3 1/2 lacs were still to be delivered. On the 22nd August 1955 two applications were filed on behalf of the State before the two compensation officers praying that the orders accepting the appellants objections in respect of the draft compensation assessment rolls be set aside and the objections be restored to their original numbers for the purpose of rehearing. The ground on which the restoration was claimed was that no notice of the objections had been issued to the State and the State having no knowledge of the objections having been filed could not appear to contest them. It was alleged that the State came to know of the orders passed in respect of the objections for the first time on the 22nd July 1955. The appellant opposed these applications for restoration on grounds of fact as well as law. The question of fact he raised was that the State knew of the objections and that the Naib tahsildars on behalf of the State had actually taken part in the hearing of the objections. As it was the case of the appellant that there were documents in the possession of the state and its officers which could conclusively show that the State and its officers had full knowledge of the objections filed by the appellant, on the 11th November 1955 the appellant made an application to the compensation officer, Tahsil Mirzapur, for the discovery and production of certain documents: mentioned in the application. The application was made under Rules 12 and 14 of order XI of the C.
