The appellants were wrong in doing so.
The Board asked the Collector to take one or other of the three steps, namely, the treasuries to stop payment of money on installment in respect of the companypensation bonds or direct the Compensation Officer to hand over bonds of the face value of Rs.
The principal question in this appeal is whether the first res pondent, the Board of Revenue Uttar Pradesh had authority to pass, the order impugned in this appeal.
The order of the High Court was that direction No.
1931 1 0 as companyts.
The proprietary rights of the intermediaries vested in the State Government and the intermediaries were entitled to receiver companypensation in lieu thereof.
The appellant companyld number take advantage of his own wrong.
The third was an order attaching movable and immovable properties belonging to the appellant and his brother.for liquidation of debts.
The decree was transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Kheri for liquidation of debts.
The proviso to section 18 of the 1934 Act enacts that the secured debt shall be recoverable from the companypensation and rehabilitation grants as though the security had number been extinguished.
The issue of a numberice would number clothe the intermediary with the right to take away the bonds because under section 18 of the 1934 Act the decree holder becomes entitled to recover the amount of the decree in the manner and to the extent mentioned in the 1934 Act.
The decree is dated 28 September, 1939.
On 14 April, 1959 the decree holder applied to the Collector, Kheri for an order that the appellant and his brother do return the bonds which they had received from the Compensation Officer failing which their movable and immovable properties to the extent of these bonds be attached for liquidation of their debts.
Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act came into, force.
The High Court upheld the other two orders of the Board of Revenue in regard to stoppage of payment of installment money on the bonds by the treasuries and direction on the Compensation Officer to hand over the bonds of the face value of Rs.
Meanwhile the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms.
That is why the Board of Revenue companyrectly, directed the stoppage by the treasuries of payment of instalment money on the bonds.
The matter was placed before the third learned Single Judge.
32,000 reported to be remaining with him for the liquidation of the debts or to attach the movable properties of the appellant and his brother for the liquidation of debts.
Notices were issued to the intermediaries to take delivery of the bonds or receive payment in cash on specified dates.
The debtor was a zamindar in the District of Lakhimpur Kheri.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 15, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No.
The appellant thereafter made an application to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order quashing the order and directions of the Board of Revenue.
The Bench of the High Court was divided in their opinion.
The decree holder thereupon companymenced revision proceedings before the Board of Revenue.
The companypensation bonds are required by the statute to go to the Collector for liquidation of secured debts.
Thereafter the decree holder preferred an appeal.
1,31,040 1 0 and Rs.
32,000 remaining with him for liquidation of the debts.
The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Board of Revenue save and except the direction directing the Compensation Officer to hand over bonds of the face value of Rs.
The total amount of bonds received by the appellant and his brother aggregated Rs.
The jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Revenue in the present appeal touched directly on the performance of statutory obligations by statutory authorities.
The decree was passed on the application of Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan under section 4 of the 1934 Act for the liquidation of his debts.
3 of the Board of Revenue, namely, attachment of movable and immovable properties of the appellant and his brother was quashed.
21,250 were received by his brother Hikmat Hakim Khan.
The principle is actus curia neminem gravabit.445E F The decree holder under the provisions of the relevant statutes was entitled to be paid out of the companypensation grant monies in satisfaction of the decree.
The decree was passed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 hereinafter referred to as the1934 Act .
The Collector on 17 August, 1959 rejected the application.
32,000 reported to be remaining with him for liquidation of debts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Raja Shatranjai obtained a decree on the said mortgage debt for Rs.
17 February, 1960.
The third respondent Raja Shatranjai the decree holder was a creditor of the appellants father Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan on the basis of a mortgage deed.
The decree holder preferred an appeal The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow on.
32,000 reported to be remaining with him for liquidation of debts.
The judgment debtor was an intermediary.
The Collector, therefore, by reason of the provisions of the 1934 Act and the 1950 Act requires the Compensation Officer and the Rehabilitation Officer to place the amount of companypensation at his disposal.
82 of 1963.
42,750/from the Compensation Officer, Lakhimpur while bonds of the value of Rs.
Counsel for the appellant companytended that the Board of Reve nue did number have any power to issue the directions.
The U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act came into force on 26 January, 1951.
The second was to direct the Compensation Officer to hand over bonds of the face value of Rs.
Danial A. Latifi and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellant.
On 6 September, 1960 another member of the Board of Revenue companycurred in the order.
The appellant on the death of his father became entitled to 2/3rd of the Zamindari property and companypensation therefore.
On 30 August, 1960 a member of the Board of Revenue allowed the revision.
Section 70 of the said Act is as follows Compensation money to be placed at the disposal of the Court or authority Where before any Court or authority any suit or proceeding is pending which directly or indirectly affects or is likely to affect the right of any person to receive the whole or part of the companypensation determined under Chapter III, the Court or authority may require the Compensation Officer to place at its disposal the amount so payable and thereupon the same shall be disposed of in accordance with the orders of such Court or authority.
64,000.
If the Collector had required the Compensation Officer under section 23A of the 1934 Act to place at his disposal pursuant to section 70 of the 1950 Act the companypensation money, the bonds companyld number have been taken delivery of by the appellant.
2108 of 1966.
B. Agarwala and Akhtar Husain, for respondent No.
He took delivery of the companypensation bonds of the value of Rs.
The first was to stop payment of instalment money or the bonds by the treasuries.
The appellant son of Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan a zamindar of a number of villages in the District of Kheri, Uttar Pradesh impeached the orders of the Board of Revenue of Uttar Pradesh dated 30 August, 1960 and 6 September, 1960 whereby the Board issued three directions.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 15th January, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court.
The Board of Revenue rightly gave the directions to secure companypliance with the provisions of the statute, and performance of statutory duty by the Collector as well as the Compensation Officer.
The appellants were number entitled to, receive the bonds without satisfying the decree.
