1999 (10) TMI 720 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority of the Member Board of Revenue to issue directions for refund.
2. Retrospective application of the Bihar Land Reforms (Validation and Amendment) Act, 1974.
3. Validity of the final compensation assessment roll and the appellant's acceptance of compensation.

Summary:

1. Authority of the Member Board of Revenue to issue directions for refund:
The appellant argued that the Member Board of Revenue was not authorized u/s 25 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act to pass the impugned order for refund of excess compensation. The respondents contended that the Member Board of Revenue had superintendence, direction, and control powers. The Court found no provision in the Act vesting such power in the Board of Revenue. However, the Court held that even if the Member Board of Revenue had no power, the order should not be quashed if the appellant was legally paid excess compensation.

2. Retrospective application of the Bihar Land Reforms (Validation and Amendment) Act, 1974:
The appellant contended that the amending Act should apply prospectively, as retrospective application would affect vested rights. The respondents argued for retrospective application as a substituted legislation. The Court referred to established principles of statutory interpretation and held that the amending Act of 1974 would apply prospectively. The Court emphasized that the legislature did not indicate any retrospective effect in the amending Act, and applying it retrospectively would go against legislative intent.

3. Validity of the final compensation assessment roll and the appellant's acceptance of compensation:
The Court noted that the appellant accepted the compensation without protest, indicating an implied agreement u/s 25(4)(a) of the Act. The appellant's acceptance of the final assessment roll precluded any claim for higher compensation. The Court also held that the provisions of Section 30 and 30-A of the Act did not apply to the appellant's case, as there was no bona fide mistake or discovery of further interests. The appellant's plea regarding non-compliance with Rule 18(2) was dismissed as it was raised after accepting the final assessment roll.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order for refund of excess compensation, despite the Member Board of Revenue's lack of jurisdiction, to avoid reviving an invalid order of excess compensation payment. No order as to costs was made.