1965 (12) TMI 152 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the State Government was entitled to notice of objections under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
2. Whether the Compensation Officer had jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings.
3. Whether the order quashing the claim of privilege by the State Government was valid.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in issuing a writ of prohibition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the State Government to Notice of Objections:
The dispute centered around whether the State Government should have been notified of objections filed by the intermediary (Raja) regarding the compensation amount. The Act requires the publication of draft Compensation Assessment Rolls and a notice to be served on the intermediary. The State Government argued it did not receive notice of the objections, which was necessary under Section 343 of the Act, which states, "The State Government shall be and be deemed to be a party in every proceeding before the Compensation Officer." The Supreme Court concluded that the State Government should have been served a special notice as laid down in Section 343, and the general notice in the Gazette did not suffice. The failure to serve such notice meant the proceedings were not binding on the State Government.

2. Jurisdiction of the Compensation Officer to Reopen Proceedings:
The State Government filed applications to reopen the objection cases, arguing it had no knowledge of the objections due to lack of notice. The Compensation Officer initially reconsidered the matter but was later overruled by his successor, who held that the proceedings could not be reopened. The Supreme Court held that the Compensation Officer had inherent power to reopen a proceeding if a necessary party (in this case, the State Government) had not been notified. The Court emphasized that the Compensation Officer must decide whether to reopen the proceedings after considering the claim of privilege properly.

3. Validity of the Order Quashing the Claim of Privilege:
The Raja had requested the discovery and production of certain documents to prove that the State Government had knowledge of the objections. The State Government claimed privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was initially accepted by the Compensation Officer. The High Court quashed this order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash the order but directed that the claim of privilege should be re-examined in light of proper affidavits and relevant rulings.

4. Issuance of a Writ of Prohibition by the High Court:
The High Court issued a writ of prohibition restraining the Compensation Officer from proceeding with the State Government's applications to reopen the objection cases. The Supreme Court found this premature, as the Compensation Officer had not yet decided on reopening the proceedings. The Supreme Court dissolved the writ of prohibition, allowing the Compensation Officer to determine whether to reopen the proceedings after addressing the claim of privilege.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal. It dissolved the writ of prohibition issued by the High Court but upheld the order quashing the Compensation Officer's decision on March 31, 1958. The Compensation Officer was directed to reconsider the claim of privilege and decide on reopening the proceedings. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appellant.