MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN NATH SAHDEO versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 07-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN NATH SAHDEO 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 1999 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Bihar Land Refomzs Act, 1950 : Sections 24, 25 and 32-Appellant 
received compensation at 3 times the net annual income-Appellant claimed 
compensation at 15 times-Agreed on 10 times of the net annual in-
0 come-Received additional compensation by order of Compensation Of-
ficer-Member, Board of Revenue reopened the case and directed for refund 
of the additional compensation-Notice for refund issued-Appellant's chal-
lenge to refund notice dismissed by the High Court-On appeal, Held : Ap-
pellant having accepted compensation at 3 times amounted to an agreement 
D between the appellant and the State-Appellant forfeited his right to ask for 
referring the matter to Tribunal under Section 25(4)(b}-Compensation Of-
ficer could not have revised the final assessment roll when payment was 
received without any objection-Unamended Section 25 was applicable to the 
present case which allowed compensation at three times the net annual in-
E come-Member, Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to reopen the 
case-However, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue not quashed as 
it would revive the illegal order of awarding compensation at 10 times. 
The appellant was a proprietor in interest in· an estate including 
the subsisting lease of mines and minerals vested in the State of Bihar 
F within the meaning of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. As a consequence 
of the proceeding for payment of compensation under the Act, a payment 
for a sum of Rs. 4,29,527.50 was made to the appellant under Section 32 
of the Act. Later, after a year, the said assessment roll was revised and 
the compensation was assessed as Rs. 46,66,014.76 calculated at three 
times of net annual income (including the earlier payment) was also 
G received by the appellant. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appel-
lant claimed compensation at 15 times of the net annual income. After a 
settlement with the respondent No. 4 i.e., the Additional Collector, the 
appellant agreed to receive compensation at ten times of net annual 
income. Accordingly, an additional compensation of Rs. 25,87 300 was 
H paid to the appellant. In 1982, the respondent No. 2 i.e., Memb~r, Board 
518 
I 
' 
( 
' -
MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN NATH SAHDEO v. STATE 
519 
of Revenue reopened the compensation case of the appellant suo moto A 
and held the compensation so computed to be contrary to Section 25(4) 
of the Act as the said section prescribed compensation only at three times 
the net income. It also directed respondent No. 3 to refund the excess 
amount of Rs. 25,87,300. Accordingly notice was issued followed by a 
certificate case on which the appellant approached the High Court. The 
High Court held that in view of the appellant's accepting compensation 
at three times without protest, the case could not have been reopened as 
there was an implied agreement between the parties in terms of Section 
25 ( 4)(a) of the Act. According to the High Court, unamended provisions 
of Section 25 of the Act were applicable to the present case and application 
B 
of amended Section 25 providing for compensation at ten times was C 
without any justification. The High Court also held that setting aside of 
the order of the Member, Board of Revenue on the ground of its being 
without jurisdiction will result in restoring an illegal order. Hence the 
present appeal. 
The appellant contended that the Act did not empower the Member, 
Board of Revenue to exercise any power and therefore, the order of 
Member, Board of Revenue directing the subordinate authority to take 
action for recovery of the additional compensation which was paid at ten 
times was illegal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The first assessment roll dated 12.5.1978 was revised and 
D 
E 
a fresh roll was prepared on 3.9.1979 as it was found that some rights of the 
appellant were excluded. The final assessment roll in form 'G' dated 
F 
3.11.1979 which included three times net income from mines and minerals 
under Section 25 was accepted by the appellant and by letter dated 
19.11.1979, Additional Collector was informed that no objection would be 
filed against from 'G'. An affidavit was also filed by the appellant stating 
that any excess amount paid to him would be recoverable if and when 
directed by Public Demand Recovery Act from the appellant. Thus it is clear G 
that the appell

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.