Case: Sub-Divisional, Officer, Mirzapur Vs. Raja Sri Niwas Prasad Singh

the 30th day and would be within time for setting aside an ex parte decree if the intimation did reach the State Government on July 22 for the first time. This matter must be tried and has not been tried. The respondent, however, contends that there is no provision for review; that the Compensation Rolls became final under S. 52; and that the State Government not having appealed, the Compensation Officer cannot reopen the proceedings. This, in our opinion, is not quite correct. The other side relies upon Craig v. Kansen, 1943 KB 256 and contends that failure to serve a notice rendered null and void the order against the State Government and the State Government was entitled to have it set aside and the Compensation Officer has inherent power to set it aside.The other side challenges this inherent power.13. No doubt the Code of Civil Procedure is to be used as far as may be and even if O. 9 does not strictly apply the inherent power conferred by S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be available to the Compensation Officer. It is contended that no general power of review is granted by the Act and as the Civil Procedure Code provides for the manner in which ex parte decrees can be set aside, inherent powers to set aside ex parte decrees may not be invoked by the Compensation Officer and the proceedings before him for reopening the objection case must be without jurisdiction. Reference is also made to S. 61 under which a slip order can be made and it is contended that the Compensation Officer after signing and sealing the final Compensation Assessment Rolls cannot do more than correct slips or errors apparent on the record.14. Here the question is not one of reopening the Compensation Roll or the objection case for purposes of making a correction or for review. The question here is that one of the necessary parties to the objection cases was neither joined nor noticed to appear. The most important party, besides the objector, claiming enhancement of the compensation, was the State which has to pay the enhanced compensation. That party had to be joined to the proceedings under S. 343 and a notice or intimation of the date of the hearing had to be sent as laid down in S. 343. Section 343 prescribes not only the manner of serving notices but lays down that the State Government must be joined. Every Court and tribunal is entitled to reopen a proceeding which has proceeded ex parte, not because a party has failed to appear but because a notice has not been sent to a necessary party. A decision reached behind the back of a necessary party to whom notice must be sent is not binding upon such a party and the Court may in such a case reopen the proceeding to give the party a chance to state its case.15. When the petition for writ was filed the proceedings before the Compensation Officer were at a very early stage. The State Government had applied for reopening of the objection cases and the Zamindar had asked for certain documents to prove that the State Government had notice of the proceedings and had, in fact, appeared through the Zamindari Abolition Naib-Tahsildars to contest the objections. The State Government had claimed privilege and the claim of privilege was allowed by the Objection Officer. The Zamindar had thereupon filed the application to challenge the claim of privilege and to get the order of the Compensation Officer quashed. As we have said earlier the matter was allowed to be enlarged so that the respondent was enabled to claim a writ of prohibition to stifle the case of the State Government for reopening of the objection case. The High Court not only quashed the order by which the documents asked to be produced were held to be privileged, but at the same time issued a writ of prohibition in the case. The question whether the Compensation Officer would or would not allow the objection cases to be reopened still remains to be decided and the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of prohibition when the Compensation Officer had clearly 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. No such question appears to have been raised before the Compensation Officer and in fact it was not so raised even in the petition before the High Court. In such circumstances the writ to prohibition was not called for and ought not to have been issued. It is manifest that the State Government was not sent a notice of the hearing of the objection cases and it has a right to move the Objection Officer to reopen the proceedings. Whether the Compensation Officer would reopen the proceeding or not is a matter for the Objection Officer to decide in the first instance. It cannot be said at this stage that there is no jurisdiction in the Objection Officer to consider the petition of the State Government.16. In the circumstances, we dissolve the writ of prohibition which has been issued by the High Court but maintain the order of the High Court quashing the order, dated March 31, 1958. This does not mean that the State Government is bound to produce all the documents. The Compensation Officer will be required to decide, in the light of the decisions of this Court reported in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, (1961) 2 SCR 371 : (AIR 1961 SC 493 ) and Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1658 , whether the claim of privilege raised by the State Government should be sustained or not. That must be done after appropriate affidavits by the heads of the Departments concerned are filed and the claim of privilege is properly examined.17.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]It is, therefore, quite clear that the State Government ought to have been joined by the objector to the proceedings for enhancement of compensation. It is equally clear that even though not joined the State Government was entitled to a special notice in common with the intermediaries and other persons interested, of the date of the hearing. Since no such intimation was sent the proceedings will not, prima facie, bind the State Government and that in fact is the claim made by the State Government by its applications for the reopening of the proceedings before the Compensationin our opinion, is not quite correct. The other side relies upon Craig v. Kansen, 1943 KB 256 and contends that failure to serve a notice rendered null and void the order against the State Government and the State Government was entitled to have it set aside and the Compensation Officer has inherent power to set it aside.When the petition for writ was filed the proceedings before the Compensation Officer were at a very early stage. The State Government had applied for reopening of the objection cases and the Zamindar had asked for certain documents to prove that the State Government had notice of the proceedings and had, in fact, appeared through the Zamindari Abolition Naib-Tahsildars to contest the objections. The State Government had claimed privilege and the claim of privilege was allowed by the Objection Officer. The Zamindar had thereupon filed the application to challenge the claim of privilege and to get the order of the Compensation Officer quashed. As we have said earlier the matter was allowed to be enlarged so that the respondent was enabled to claim a writ of prohibition to stifle the case of the State Government for reopening of the objection case. The High Court not only quashed the order by which the documents asked to be produced were held to be privileged, but at the same time issued a writ of prohibition in the case. The question whether the Compensation Officer would or would not allow the objection cases to be reopened still remains to be decided and the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of prohibition when the Compensation Officer had clearly 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. No such question appears to have been raised before the Compensation Officer and in fact it was not so raised even in the petition before the High Court. In such circumstances the writ to prohibition was not called for and ought not to have been issued. It is manifest that the State Government was not sent a notice of the hearing of the objection cases and it has a right to move the Objection Officer to reopen the proceedings. Whether the Compensation Officer would reopen the proceeding or not is a matter for the Objection Officer to decide in the first instance. It cannot be said at this stage that there is no jurisdiction in the Objection Officer to consider the petition of the State Government.In the circumstances, we dissolve the writ of prohibition which has been issued by the High Court but maintain the order of the High Court quashing the order, dated March 31, 1958. This does not mean that the State Government is bound to produce all the documents. The Compensation Officer will be required to decide, in the light of the decisions of this Court reported in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, (1961) 2 SCR 371  : (AIR 1961 SC 493  ) and Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1658  , whether the claim of privilege raised by the State Government should be sustained or not. That must be done after appropriate affidavits by the heads of the Departments concerned are filed and the claim of privilege is properly examined.