SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MIRZAPUR versus RAJA SRI NIWAS PRASAD SINGH

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 09-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

970 
SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MIRZAPUR 
v. 
RAJA SRI NIWAS PRASAD SINGH 
December 9, 1965 
[P. 
B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. 
N. 
WANCHOO, 
M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, V. 
RAMASWAMI 
AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, 
JJ.] 
Uttar Pmdesh Zamindari Abolilion and Land Reforms Act, 1952 
( U.P. I of 1952), s. 343--<Compensation Assessment Roll, Objection 
to--Notlce to State Governn1ent-lf necersary-Manner of Service. 
The Sub-Divisional Officers of Mirzapur and Chunar Tahsils, func-
tioning as Compensation Officers under 
the Uttar Pradesh 
Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 prepared draft Compensation 
Assessment Rolls, and notified them in the Official Gazette as required by 
s. 46(1)(a) of the Act. 
A notice was 
also served on the respondent, 
who was entitled to compensation under the Act. 
The ·respondent filed 
objections and claimed higher compensation. 
The State Government was 
not given notice of the objections nor any intimation of the date of hear-
ing was sent to it. 
As a result of the objections, the Compensation 
awardable to the respondent was enhanced, 
and the final compensation 
Rolls were then signed and sealed. 
Nearly eight months thereafter, the 
State Government filed applications before the Compensation Officer for 
reopening the objection cases, and claimed (o have made these applica-
tions on the 30th day of their knowledge about the revision of the Rolls. 
The respondent opposed the applications 
alleging that the State had 
knowledge of the proceedings, and asked 
for the production of certain 
documents to prove that the State Government had notice of the pro-
ceedings and the State, had, in fact" appeared through 
the Zamindari 
Abolition Naib Tahsildars to contest the objections. The State Govern-
ment claimed privilege which was allowed 
by 
the Objection 
Officer. 
Thereupon the respondent challenged 
the claim of privilege in a 
writ 
petition to the Hi!l'.h Court, where the respondent was also allowed to 
claim a writ of prohibition against the reopening of the objection easeo. 
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but on appeal, the Division 
Bench quashed the order of the Objection Officer holding the documents 
were privileged. It also issued a writ of prohibition. 
In appeal, 
HELD : Section 343 says that Government shall be a party to every 
proceeding and it was therefore 
necessary 
to join Government and to 
send it a notice of the objection. 
The definition of "person interested" 
is not an exhaustive definition and the interest of Government is manifest. 
When the section says that Goverrunent shall b.e deemed to be a party, it 
only means that Government can 
appear 
even if not joined. [977 G; 
978 CJ 
A notice to Government must be sent to the District Collector 
and 
till notice is so sent Government cannot be treated as serve\}. [978 F[ 
Every court and tribunal is entitled to reopen a proceeding which bas 
proceeded ex parte, not because a party has failed to appear but because 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
a notice has not been sent to a necessary party. [980 A-Bl 
H 
. As the question whether the compensation officer would or would not 
allow the objection cases to be reopened still 
remained to be decided, 
the High Court \Vas in error in issuing a writ of prohibition 
when the 
{ .r-
• 
s. D. 0. v. N. P. SINGH (Hidayatul!ah, 1.) 
971 
A 
Cmnpensation Officer had jurisdiction to determine whether to reopen the 
proceedings. The question of jurisdiction can only be decided after it 
has been considered by the Compensation Officer 
and he proceeds 
to 
reopen the proceedings. [980 E-G] 
C1v1L APPELLATE JuR1smcnoN: Civil Appeal No. 751 of 
J 963. 
B 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated November 21, 
1961, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 123 of 
1960. 
C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, ·for the appellants. 
G. S. Pathak, B. Dutta, C. S. P. Singh, S. N. Prasad and J. B. 
C 
Dadachanji, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
This is an appeal by certificate under Art. 
J 33(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution against the judgment of the 
D 
High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 123 of 1960, 
dated November 21, 1961. By the judgment under appeal the 
Divisional Bench reversing the decision of a learned single Judge 
of that Court accepted a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitu-
tion filed by the present respondent in the following circumstances. 
The respondent Raja Sri Niwas P.rasad Singh owned ex

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