LexTHE COLLECTOR OF MONGHYR AND OTHERS versus KESHAV PRASAD GOENKA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961! Ch11v'1lier /. /, l7yappon v. The D/iarmod_oyam Ctnnpany Eop.. J. 1962 March ZS. 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) agreement if any of the parties but it is unnecessary to go into these caseR because the offer which was originally m.ade by the appellant and accepted by the respondent company has not been adhered to and the appellant is now proceeding on an entirely new basis. In our opinion the offer and the aooeptence of the terms of the trust deed being wholly diffe- rent from what has now been executed by the appellant and from the manner in which the new trust has been constituted into a lessee of the com- pany without the company's agreement it is not possible for a court in equity to accept the new trust as a bar to the respondent's claim for posses· sion. In this case the appellant has suffered no loss. The amount which he has expended has been returned to him. In our opinion the judgment of the High Court Wllll right and we therefore dismiss this appeal with costs. Appeal dismisstd. THE COLLECTOR OF MONGHYR AND OTHERS v. KE8HAV PRASAD GOENKA AND OTHERS (And connected appeals) (B. P. SINKA, C.J., K: SUBBA RAO, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VENXATAB.illi AIYAR, JJ.) Private Irrigation Work-Repairs to worka-Nolice to landlord-Collector' B power to direct repairo wilhout notice-- Statute requiring reasons to be recorded by Oollecf,or-Jf manda- tory-Demand on landlord for share of cosla-Legatity-Bihar Private Irrigation Worka Act, 1922(Bihar and Oriasa 5 of 1922), as. 8, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 11, 12-0onotitvlion of India, Art. 226. The Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922, was enacted to provide, inter alia, for the repairs and improvements " • I 1\ i s.c.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 99 of certain irrigation works. Under ss. 3 to S of the Act the Collector was empowered to take action, where he was satisfif'd that the matter was of sufficient importance for the repairs etc. of the existing irrigation works after causing a notice to be served on the landlord of the land in which the irrigation work was situated and after making the necessary enquiries. Section SA provided : "Notwithstanding anything to .. the contrary contained in this Act, whenever the Collector, for reasons to be recorded by him, is of o¢nion that the delay in the repair of any existing work which may be occ~sioned by proceedings commenced by a notice under s. 3 adversely affects or is likely to affect adversely lands which are depen- dent on such irrigation work for a supply of water, he may forthwith c(!use the iepair of such irrigation work to be begun •... " In pursuance of a circular issued by tpe Government of Bihar to the District Officers, the .officials of the revenue department submitted reports pointing out that the irrigation works specified by them needed repairs. The Collector of Monghyr, on receipt of the report p,assed an ~rder under s. 5.A of the Act on the terms as recited m that section, but he did not record the reasons why he considered that the delay in issuing the notice under s. 3 would bring about the conse- quences which were recited ins. SA. After the work was completed, there was an apportionment of the total cost and a demand was made on the landlord under s. 11 of the Act for his share of the contribution. The landlord challenged the legality of the demand by filing an application before the High Court of Patna under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds, inter alia, that it was an essential requirement of s. SA that the Collector should record his reasons for departing from the normal procedure of an order based on an enquiry under ss. 3 to S, and that the failure to do so rendered the action taken under s. 5A void, so as to render invalid all further proceedings for the recovery of the landlord's share of the apportioned cost. Held, that in the context in which the words "for .the reasons to be recorded by him" occur ins. SA of the Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922, and considering the scheme of the Act, the requirement of these words was manda- tory ; that as in the present case, the requirement was not complied with, \he order of the Collector under s. 5A was null and void. State of Uttar Prad.eah v. Manbodhan Lal Srivaatava l 9S8J S.C R. 533, considered'. 1962 The Collector of Monghyr v. Kes/iatJ Prastd Goenka J98B Thi Coll1elnr of Mohg/iy>' •• Kuhao Pr-.sad Ga..k1 100 St
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.