SRI PRABIN RAM PHUKAN &ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 11-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R.175 
SRI PRABIN RAM PHUKAN &ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 662-663 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 11, 2014 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.) 
. 
Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886- ss. 3(b), 
A 
B 
70, 72 - Land revenue - Non-payment, by appellants-land 
holders-Auction sale of property of appellant for realization C 
of Rs. 731. 701-- State purchased the land/estate for Rs. 1 in 
the auction proceedings - Board set aside the auction and 
sale proceedings and directed for restoration of l~nd to the 
appellant as also pay the appellants compensation amount 
· deposited by IOC for allotted land - However, non-payment D 
of compensation amount to the appellants - Single Judge 
directed the State to pay. compensation amount to the 
appellants - However, Division Bench upheld the auction 
sale as also the transfer of land to the State - On appeal, 
held: High Court erred in interfering with the finding of the 
E 
Board - Board rightly held that auction conducted was not 
made in conformity with the procedure prescribed in the 
Regulation; that no notice of either demand or/and sale of 
land was served on the appellants and High Court ought not 
to have interfered with this finding of fact; that the High Court F 
exceeded its jurisdiction and reversed the factual finding; and 
the writ court did not assign any cogent reason as to why the 
factual finding of the Board was wrong - Thus, the auction 
held by the State nefther legal and nor in conformity with the 
requirements contained in the Regulation and rightly set G 
aside by the Board- lmpugnedjudgment set aside and that 
of the Board restored - State directed to pay the amount of 
compensation deposited by IOC for the land allotted to them 
to the appellants along with interest as also restore the 
175 
H 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A possession of the remaining land - Constitution of India, 
1950-Arts. 227 and 300A. 
B 
Notice - Non-service of notice and a notice though 
served but with some kind of procedural irregularities in 
serving - Distinction between - Explained. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The finding of the High Court cannot be 
concurred with. The High Court should not have 
interfered with the finding of the Board which rightly held 
C that auction conducted to recove.r the outstanding 
arrears of land revenue (Rs.731.70) from the appellants 
was not made in conformity with the procedure 
prescribed in the Regulation and was, therefore, bad in 
law. [Para 23][198-E-F] 
D 
E 
1.2 In the first place, the well reasoned finding of 
fact recorded by the Board in favour of the appellants 
(landholders) on the question of non-service of notice 
of the demand for payment of defaulted amount of arrears 
of land revenue of Rs. 731.70 and non-service of notice 
of sale of land was binding on the writ court, being a 
pure finding of fact and more so, when it was based on 
proper appreciation of facts. The High CouJ1: exceeded 
its jurisdiction when it proceeded to examine this factual 
issue like an appellate court and reversed the factual 
F finding. Assuming that the High Court could go into this 
issue in its writ jurisdictiQn, yet mere perusal of the 
finding of the High Court would go to show that no 
proper service much less effective service of notice of 
demand and sale of land was made on the appellants. In 
G other words, reading of reasoning and discussion of the 
High Court cannot allow to reach to a conclusion that 
the appellants were duly served of the notices. Rather it 
would take to a conclusion that the appellants were not 
properly served. The writ court did not assign any cogent 
H 
SRI PRABIN RAM PHUKAN v. STATE OF ASSAM 
177 
reason as to why the factual finding of the Board on this A 
issue was wrong and hence, call for interference. On 
examination of the issue of notice independently in the 
light of the requirement of s. 72 read with Rules 133, 134, 
136 and 136-A which deals with the mode of effecting 
service on the defaulting landholder, then there is no B 
hesitation in recording a finding that no notice was served 
on the appellants as contemplated under the 
aforementioned provisions and the High Court ought not 
to have interfered with this finding of fact for holding 
otherwise. [Paras 24, 25][198-G-H; 199-A-E; 200-A] 
C 
1.3 There lies a distinction between non- service of 
notice and a notice though served but with some kind 
of procedural irregularities in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.