SUSHILA DEVI Vs. RAMANANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution granted by the Patna High Court arises out of a proceedings under Section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 (thereinafter referred to as the Act). By the order challenged in this appeal the High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the first respondent setting aside an appellate order under Section 16 and restoring the original order passed on an application under Section 3 of the Act. To appreciate the nature of the dispute between the parties, it would be more convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act before we turn to the facts of the case.

(2.) The Act was passed, as its long title and preamble show to provide for

(3.) The facts of this case are as follows. . The land in dispute was sold on July 11, 1945 in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. The auction- purchaser, one Tilakdhari Lal, obtained delivery of possession and remained in possession for a little over two years before selling the land to the appellant Sushila Devi on December 1, 1948. On October 27. 1957 the first respondent applied for restoration of the land under Section 3 of the Act before the Circle Officer Birpur, who was appointed by the Government to discharge the functions of a Collector under the Act. According to the appellant, she spent a large sum of money on reclamation of the land and building structures on a part of it. On February 17, 1958 the Circle Officer made an order for restoration in respect of the holding excluding an area of 9.25 acres on which the appellant had built structures. In terms of this order the first respondent was to pay compensation of Rs. 20.000/- to the appellant in three annual instalments of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, and Rupees 5.000/-, the first installment was to have been paid. between March 1, 1958 and June 1, 1958. The order added that if the first instalment was not paid within the specified period, the applicant would "lose the benefit of the order of restoration." The first respondent did not pay the instalment within the time allowed, and on September 11, 1958 preferred an appeal to the Collector against ' the order of the Circle Officer. The appeal was dismissed for default. The first respondent threafter filed a revision petition before the Commissioner though the Act did not provide for a revision against an appellate order passed by the Collector of the District. The Commissioner however set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the appeal for rehearing. The appellant questioned the correctness of the Commissioner's order by filing a writ petition before the Patna High Court which was allowed by the High Court on June 30, .1964 and the order of the Commissioner was quashed. The High Court observed in its order that it did not think that the decision of the Circle Officer was arbitrary or defective in law. The first respondent obtained a certificate under Article 133 (1) of the Constitution to appeal to this Court against that order of the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on July 9. 1965.