Case: Raja Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo Vs. Kumar Jagat Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh

the compensation shall first be payable to the creditor and then to the proprietor or tenure-holder, the amount of compensation payable to the creditor being the amount determined under Ch. 4. All compensation payable to the proprietor, tenure-holder or encumbrancer is required to be set out in the Compensation Assessment-roll. Section 35 of the Act states, "No suit shall be brought in any Civil Court in respect of any entry in or omission from a Compensation Assessment roll or in respect of any order passed under Chapters II to VI or concerning any matter which is or has already been the subject of any application made or proceeding taken under the said Chapters." This section would make it impossible for the decision of the Claims Officer or the Board to be challenged in an ordinary civil proceeding Section 32, which is contained in Chapter 6 of the Act, provides that when the Compensation Assessment-roll has become final as prescribed in the Act, the Compensation Officer appointed under the Act proceed to make payment in the matter specified in it. We may also refer to S. 38 of the Act which states that the Claims Officer and the Compensation Officer shall have the powers of a Civil Court.14. What is the effect of these provisions on the redemption decree in so as it directed the mortgage accounts to be taken? It seems to us that they rendered that part of the decree also infructuous. In our view, the mortgage accounts cannot be taken under the decree for they have already been taken under the Act and the decision of the Claims; Officer on the state of the accounts is final under S.18(3). In view of S. 35, no suit can be brought concerning the decision of the Claims Officer. It is true that the suit in the present case had been brought before the Act and would not itself be affected by S. 35.But we should suppose that the Act will now prevent the account being taken under the decree so as to challenge the decision of the Claims Officer. If this were not so, the Officer taking the accounts under the decree has to accept the Claims Officers decision for that is final and the parties cannot challenge it. That being so, the result would be that the officer taking the accounts would have to make a report finding that the same amount which the Claims Officer found to be due, was due to the mortgagee. On this report a decree would follow and the appellant would become entitled to the amount found due to him under the decree. Now, he was already entitled to that amount under S. 32(1) of the Act. He would then have a right to be paid the same sum twice over in respect of the same mortgage right. We cannot conceive that such an anomalous position could have been intended by the Act. We, therefore, think that since the Act, the redemption decree cannot be given effect to.15. The High Court seems to have thought that the Officer taking the accounts under the redemption decree would not be bound by the decision of the Claims Officer. This view was, based on the reason that only such of the Claims Officers decisions would be blinding as had been given in matters over which he had jurisdiction and that he had no jurisdiction to investigate into a claim by the mortgagor in respect of realisation by the mortgagee from the mortgaged properties in excess of his dues. We think that in this the High Court was in error. In taking the accounts the Claims Officer has to decide under S.16(2)(b) how much had been paid to the mortgagee of realised by him. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the Act did not give the Claims Officer jurisdiction to go into the question of the realisation by the mortgagee. It is true, as the High Court pointed out, that the Act does not expressly bar a suit by a mortgagor for redemption but that seems to be the practical and inevitable effect of it. This does not affect the rights of a mortgagor. He can establish before the Claims Officer that the mortgagee had realised out of the income of the mortgaged properties of which he was in possession more than what was legitimately due to him. If he succeeds in doing that, the Claims Officer will hold that nothing is payable to the mortgagee out of the compensation. He tray even indicate that the mortgagee has been overpaid to a certain extent. Whether in such a case the mortgagor can file a suit to recover from the mortgagee the amount paid in excess is not a question that arises in this appeal. Even if he could, that would not lead to the conclusion that in the present case the mortgage accounts can be taken under the redemption decree. We, therefore, express no opinion on that question. We think it right to point out that the Act has taken sufficient care to see that neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee is in any way prejudiced in the proceedings concerning the investigation of the mortgagees claim. It has provided that the investigation would be by experienced judicial officers of high status and that the proceedings would be taken as if they were taken in a Civil Court.16. In the result, in our view, on the mortgage security having vested in the State of Bihar free from encumbrances under the Land Reforms Act the redemption decree passed by, the learned Subordinate Judge became infructuous. The decree could not stand any more; the accounts directed to be taken by it could no more be taken, nor the other directions contained in it carried out. In our view, the High Court was in error in confirming the decree. The decree could no longer be acted upon. The claim proceedings under the Act finally determined the state of the mortgage accounts.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]11. We think that this appeal must be allowed. It is clear that a redemption decree can no more be given effect to after the notification issued under the Land Reforms Act, since thereafter the mortgaged tenures became vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances. The tenures having vested in the State of Bihar, the mortgagee had no longer any interest in the tenures nor was he in possession of them. He could not carry out the decree by reconveying the tenures to the mortgagor or put him into possession. The mortgage as a security had ceased to exist, for the mortgaged properties vested in the State of Bihar under the Act free from all encumbrances. The mortgagor in his turn also ceased to be entitled to the mortgaged properties. He had hence no right to redeem them. Therefore, in our view, the decree for redemption which had been previously passed, becameare unable to accept this contention in view of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act to some of which we shall nowseems to us that they rendered that part of the decree also infructuous. In our view, the mortgage accounts cannot be taken under the decree for they have already been taken under the Act and the decision of the Claims; Officer on the state of the accounts is final under S.18(3). In view of S. 35, no suit can be brought concerning the decision of the Claims Officer. It is true that the suit in the present case had been brought before the Act and would not itself be affected by S. 35.But we should suppose that the Act will now prevent the account being taken under the decree so as to challenge the decision of the Claims Officer. If this were not so, the Officer taking the accounts under the decree has to accept the Claims Officers decision for that is final and the parties cannot challenge it. That being so, the result would be that the officer taking the accounts would have to make a report finding that the same amount which the Claims Officer found to be due, was due to the mortgagee. On this report a decree would follow and the appellant would become entitled to the amount found due to him under the decree. Now, he was already entitled to that amount under S. 32(1) of the Act. He would then have a right to be paid the same sum twice over in respect of the same mortgage right. We cannot conceive that such an anomalous position could have been intended by the Act. We, therefore, think that since the Act, the redemption decree cannot be given effect to.15. The High Court seems to have thought that the Officer taking the accounts under the redemption decree would not be bound by the decision of the Claims Officer. This view was, based on the reason that only such of the Claims Officers decisions would be blinding as had been given in matters over which he had jurisdiction and that he had no jurisdiction to investigate into a claim by the mortgagor in respect of realisation by the mortgagee from the mortgaged properties in excess of his dues. We think that in this the High Court was in error. In taking the accounts the Claims Officer has to decide under S.16(2)(b) how much had been paid to the mortgagee of realised by him. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the Act did not give the Claims Officer jurisdiction to go into the question of the realisation by the mortgagee. It is true, as the High Court pointed out, that the Act does not expressly bar a suit by a mortgagor for redemption but that seems to be the practical and inevitable effect of it. This does not affect the rights of a mortgagor. He can establish before the Claims Officer that the mortgagee had realised out of the income of the mortgaged properties of which he was in possession more than what was legitimately due to him. If he succeeds in doing that, the Claims Officer will hold that nothing is payable to the mortgagee out of the compensation. He tray even indicate that the mortgagee has been overpaid to a certain extent. Whether in such a case the mortgagor can file a suit to recover from the mortgagee the amount paid in excess is not a question that arises in this appeal. Even if he could, that would not lead to the conclusion that in the present case the mortgage accounts can be taken under the redemption decree. We, therefore, express no opinion on that question. We think it right to point out that the Act has taken sufficient care to see that neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee is in any way prejudiced in the proceedings concerning the investigation  of the mortgagees claim. It has provided that the investigation would be by experienced judicial officers of high status and that the proceedings would be taken as if they were taken in a Civil Court.16. In the result, in our view, on the mortgage security having vested in the State of Bihar free from encumbrances under the Land Reforms Act the redemption decree passed by, the learned Subordinate Judge became infructuous. The decree could not stand any more; the accounts directed to be taken by it could no more be taken, nor the other directions contained in it carried out. In our view, the High Court was in error in confirming the decree. The decree could no longer be acted upon. The claim proceedings under the Act finally determined the state of the mortgage accounts.