Mst. Bismillah Begum vs District Judge and Others

M.P. Mehrotra, J.—This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.

The facts, in brief, are these. One Nawab Noorul Rahman Khan was the tenure-holder to whom the notice under the Ceiling Act was issued proposing to declare certain land in his possession as surplus land. During the pendency of the said proceedings the said tenure-holder died on 28th June, 1967. He left Smt. Badrul Jahan Begum as his widow and the Petitioner as his daughter. After his death the name of the said widow was substituted as the legal heir of the deceased tenure holder. On 27th December, 1967 the Prescribed Authority declared an area of 351 Bighas 15 Biswas 2 Biswansis as surplus land of the deceased tenure-holder. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority the said widow as the legal representative of the deceased tenure-holder, filed an appeal u/s 13 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate court on 23rd August, 1968, and thereafter the review petition filed by the said widow was also dismissed by the appellate court on October 19, 1968. The said widow died on January 19, 1969, and the Petitioner claims that after the death of the said widow, who was her mother, the Petitioner''s name was mutated in the revenue records as the daughter of the said widow and of the deceased tenure-holder. It seems that the proceedings, took place under Chapter 3 of the Act for the determination and payment of compensation, and the Petitioner filed her objections u/s 19(2) of the Act, against the draft compensation roll. She filed the objections after the receipt of a notice u/s 19(2) of the Act. The Compensation Officer by his order dated 4th December, 1969 disposed off the said objections of the Petitioner and confirmed the draft compensation roll for a sum of Rs. 84013.40 P. as compensation payable for the acquisition of the surplus land held by the deceased tenure-holder who, as stated above, was the father of the Petitioner. Against the said order dated 4th December, 1969 passed by the Compensation Officer, an appeal was filed by the opposite party No. 4, Mohammad Islam Ahmad, claiming to be the son of the deceased tenure-holder. The said appeal was allowed by the District Judge, Saharanpur by his judgment dated 23rd August, 1971. The appellate court set aside the aforesaid order of the Compensation Officer dated 4th December, 1969 and also set aside an earlier order dated 16th June, 1969 which had been passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the application dated 17th April, 1969 of the opposite party No. 4 praying that he should be treated as the son and the heir of the deceased tenure-holder Nawab Noorul Rahman Khan and should be substituted in the ceiling proceedings in the said capacity.

Now the Petitioner has come up in the instant writ petition praying that the said judgment of the appellate court dated 23rd August, 1971 be quashed as it was without jurisdiction. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of the petition and the Learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4 has made his submissions in opposition.

It seems to me that the appeal filed before the District Judge was wholly incompetent. It is not necessary to go into question as to whether the order dated 16th June, 1969 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the application of the opposite party No. 4 dated 17th April, 1969 seeking his substitution as the son and heir of the deceased tenure-holder was appealable or was not appealable and whether the same became final or did not become final; it is not necessary to go into that question. The important point is that when the Compensation Officer issued the notice u/s 19(2) of the Act to the Petitioner, only the latter showed cause under the said provision, i.e., Section 19(2) of the Act. Whether the opposite party No. 4 could or could not show cause is not needed to be decided. u/s 20(2) of the Act an exparte order could be set aside on sufficient cause being shown for the absence of the aggrieved person. Against the order passed u/s 20(2) of the Act an appeal has been prescribed u/s 20(2) of the Act. Section 21 is the important provision in respect of the controversy at hand. The said section is reproduced below:

Disposal of objections. (1) The Compensation Officer shall hear any person showing cause under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 or in pursuance of any order under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 20, and after affording an opportunity to such person for the production of evidence, give his decision in writing with reasons therefor. The Compensation Officer shall prepare and declare the compensation assessment roll in accordance with such decision.

(2) An appeal shall lie from an order passed under Sub-section (1), within 30 days of that order, to the District Judge in whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is situate.

(3) The District Judge shall hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and, where necessary, the compensation assessment roll shall be amended in accordance with such decision.

(4) Subject to the correction of any clerical or arithmatical mistake by the Compensation Officer or the District Judge, the compensation assessment roll declared u/s 20, or declared or modified under this section, shall be final and conclusive and be not questioned in any court of law.

It will be seen that an appeal to the District Judge u/s 21(2) of the Act can lie only when an order has been passed by the Compensation Officer u/s 21(1) of the Act and the said appeal can lie only at the instance of the person against whom the order has been passed u/s 21(1) of the Act. u/s 21(1) of the Act it is clearly provided that "the Compensation Officer" shall hear any person showing cause under Sub-section (2) of Section 19 or in pursuance of any order under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 20, and after affording an opportunity to such person for the production of evidence, give his decision in writing with reasons therefor." It is obvious that the opposite party No. 4 does not come under any part of Section 21(1) of the Act. Accordingly, no appeal lay at his instance and, therefore the judgment of the District Judge in the instant case must he held to be without jurisdiction.

In this connection attention may be drawn to Section 17(3) of the Act and the opposite party No. 4 may if he is so advised, and if the remedy be available to him in law (obviously I cannot say anything in respect of the said matter), avail of the same but I again emphasise that it is not for this Court to act as an advisor to the opposite party No. 4 or for that matter to any litigant and it is for the persons concerned to chalk out his remedy according to law.

This petition is accordingly allowed and the judgment of the District Judge dated 23rd August, 1971 Annexure 8 is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.