The State Government requested the Compensation Officer, Mirzapur Mr. R. K. Misra to decide the question whether a second application was maintainable after the first had been rejected.
The State Government claimed privilege under ss.
By the judgment under appeal the Divisional Bench reversing the decision of a learned single Judge of that Court accepted a petition under Art.
123 of 1960, dated November 21, 1961.
Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai who heard the petition for writ dismissed it on February 23, 1960, but on appeal his judgment was reversed by the Divisional Bench on November 21, 1960.
The State Government claimed that the final Compensation Rolls were number binding upon it.
The State Government again objected to the last application, claiming privilege and also pointing out that similar applications had already been rejected earlier.
The Raja received the bonds in respect of the original companypensation and also a part of the enhanced companypensation.
The State Government had, however, issued a numberification No.
The main ground on which the State Government resisted the plea of the Raja was that it had numbernotice under the Act of the proceedings for revision.
The Divisional Bench quashed the order, dated March 31, 1958, and issued a writ of prohibition restraining the Compensation Officer, Mirzapur from proceeding with the applications filed by the State Government for the restoration of the objection cases to file.
The present appeal has been filed against the last order.
226 of the Constitution filed by the present respondent in the following circumstances.
His order was made on March 31, 1958.
The companypensation in respect of his interests in Chunar Tahsil was also substantially enhanced.
The Raja also asked for a writ of mandamus or direction to the Compensation Officer, to hear and determine his Rajas application under 0.
The State Government had applied for reopening of the objection cases and the Zamindar had asked for certain documents to prove that the State Government had numberice of the proceedings and had, in fact, appeared through the Zamindari Abolition Naib Tahsildars to companytest the objections.
1 1 rr.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 21, 1961, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure for discovery and production of the documents mentioned in the application.
When the petition for writ was filed the proceedings before the Compensation Officer were at a very early stage.
The Raja opposed the applications and alleged that the State Government had knowledge of the proceedings and had actually participated in them before the Compensation Officers through its Naib Tahsildars.
In support of his plea the Raja filed an application on November 11, 1955 before the Compensation Officer, Mirzapur, tinder 0.
He urged that the Compensation Rolls had become final and companyld number be reopened.
11 rr.
The Raja also stated that the State Government and its officers had in their possession certain documents from which it companyld be proved companyclusively that the State Government had full knowledge of the objections filed by him.
The respondent Raja Sri Niwas Prasad Singh owned extensive zamindari interests in tahsils Mirazpur and Chunar of Mirzapur District in Uttar Pradesh.
Subsequently, with the companyrts permission, two more grounds were added on May 5, 1958 and one such ground was the following Because the Assessment Rolls have become final and they cannot be opened at this stage.
145 A.C. 5/158 1953 on July 29, 1953 instructing all District Officers that in objection cases, in which it was deemed necessary to arrange for the State Government to be represented before the Compensation Officers, the District Officers should specifically authorise the Zamindari Abolition Naib Tahsildars to plead on behalf of the State Government.
The Raja filed objections to the draft Rolls, companytending that the amount of companypensation should have been higher than what was fixed.
1 23 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and the application was rejected the same day by the Compensation Officer.
The main ground on which the State Government claimed to have the proceedings re opened was that numberices of the objections were number issued to the State Government as required by the Act and that the State Government, having numberknowledge of the objections, companyld number appear and companytest the case set up by the Raja.
The Raja, thereupon, filed on April 11, 1958, a petition under Art.
3,01,348 5 0.
The present dispute companycerns the assessment of companypensation to which the Raja became entitled under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 U.P. Act 1 of 1951 from July 1, 1952.
As a result of the objections, the Compensation awardable to the Raja for his zamindari interest in Mirzapur Tahsil was enhanced by about Rs.
When the cases went before the Sub Divisional Officer Com pensation Officer , Mirzapur, two fresh applications were filed on August 22, 1957 for discovery, production and inspection of the documents already the subject of the previous applications and some more.
a of s. 46 1 of the Act.
A similar application for discovery and production of documents made before the Compensation Officer, Chunar, on December 15, 1955 was rejected on January 5, 1956 when the State Government claimed privilege.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On October 6, 1956 the District Judge, Allahabad, companysolidated the two companypensation cases pending in Mirzapur and Chunar Tahsils and directed that they should be heard by the Sub Divisional Officer Compensation Officer , Mirzapur.
12 and 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Under that Act, the proprietary interests of the Raja in the Zamindari properties situated in the two tahsils vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
On August 22, 1955 the State of Uttar Pradesh filed two applications before the Compensation Officers at Mirzapur and Chunar praying that the objection cases be re opened and the State Government given a hearing.
A companyy of the numberice was also served on the Raja along with a companyy of the draft Compensation Assessment Rolls as required by cl.
By an order, dated October 12, 1957, Mr. Misra held that the question companyld be reconsidered and directed the State Government to file objections in detail.
B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for the appellants.
S. Pathak, B. Dutta, C. S. P. Singh, S. N. Prasad and B. Dadachanji, for the respondent.
Although the matter in dispute really was whether inspection and discovery had been wrongly disallowed, the High Court at the hearing permitted the Raja to raise the more fundamental question whether the State of Uttar Pradesh was entitled to claim to reopen the proceedings by which companypensation was revised.
The Sub Divisional Officers of Mirzapur and Chunar tahsils, who were functioning as Compensation Officers under the Act, prepared draft Compensation Assessment Rolls and they were numberified in the official Gazette as required by cl.
751 of 1963.
133 1 b and c of the Constitution against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No.
It is an admitted fact that numbernotice of the objections filed by the Raja was given to the State of Uttar Pradesh number was any intimation of the date of hearing sent.
226 of the Constitution, impugning the order passed by Mr. Upadhaya and asking that it be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by certificate under Art.
123 of 1960.
The State Government averred that information about the revision of the Compensation Rolls was received by it for the first time on July 22, 1955 and the applications were moved immediately.
