1 of 1951 was number produced by the creditors and that, therefore, numberorder companyld be passed as the debt had remained number proved 5 that the total amount due should have been directed to be recovered from out of the companypensation money and restricted to that amount and 6 that the Sub Divisional Officer had companymitted an error apparent on the face of the record in making the calculations of principal as well as interest.
The appellants are the legal representatives of Kesheorao deceased who mortgaged, as per mortgage deed dated May 10, 1927, property situated in two Taluks Yeotmal and Kalapur for Rs.
The matter was accordingly remanded.
After the mortgagees had made attempt to secure payment of the mortgaged money, the proprietary interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property was extinguished under the Act.
3 and his predecessOrs.
An appeal was filed against the above order and the appellate authority, Commissioner of Nagpur Division, as per order dated August 13, 1963 affirmed the finding of the Sub Divisional Officer with regard to the principal debt.
79,192 was due and payable by the mortgagor to the mortgagees.
It may be mentioned that appeal filed by the appellants is already pending against the order dated November 4, 1963 of the Claims Officer.
The file of the case was subsequently found to be missing and thereupon Sub Divisional Officer Yeotmal, who was one of the Claims Officers companypetent to deal with the matter, was directed to determine the amount due under the mortgage.
On August 81, 1962 the Sub Divisional Officer passed an order holding that an amount of Rs.
On November 4, 1963 the Sub Divisional Officer, Yeotmal in his capacity as Claims Officer, held that an amount of Rupees 65,719.09 paise was due under the mortgage.
Provision was made in the Act for ensuring the payments of debts incurred by the proprietor whose proprietary right was extinguished under the Act.
42,000 in favour of Hirachand Ratan chand Munot respondent No.
As regards interest, the appellate authority held that the order made by the Claims Officer was number in accordance with law.
On August 18, 1951 an application was made by the mortgagor under Section 19 of the Act for determining the amount payable under the above mentioned mortgage.
On the same day, i.e. November 4, 1963 the appellants filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing order dated August 31, 1962 made by the Claims Officer as well as order dated August 13, 1963 made by the appellate authority.
The following six companytentions were raised on behalf of the appellants before the High Court 1 that the Claims Officer, who passed this case had numberjurisdiction to entertain this claim petition, because he was number appointed by the proper officer 2 that even if it be held that his appointment was properly made, he had numberjurisdiction to reconstruct the record in order to enable him to give findings on the reconstructed record 3 that there was an order passed by the Debt Conciliation Board some time before 1940 by which it was held that the debt was fully discharged and that order having been passed by an authority which had the jurisdiction to do so was effective and should have been given effect to by the Claims Officer 4 that the proper material which was required to be produced by the creditors under the provisions of Section 23 2 of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Act No.
1 of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act was dismissed.
R. Khanna, J. This appeal on certificate is directed against the judgment of Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellants for quashing orders made by the Claims Officer and the appellate authority under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, 1950 Act No.
