RAJA SRINIWAS PRASAD SINGH Vs. S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petitioner's special appeal against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Prior to the abolition of Zamindari in this State the appellant owned extensive zamindari interests in two tahsils of the Mirzapur district, viz., Tahsil Mirzapur and Tahsil Chunar. On the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 with effect from the 1st July 1952 the State acquired all the proprietary interests of the appellant in his zamindari properties and under the provisions of the Act the appellant became entitled to compensation. The Sub-Divisional Officers of the Mirzapur and the Chunar tahsils who were functioning as compensation officers under the Act prepared draft compensation assessment rolls which were duly notified as required by the Act. The appellant filed objections to the draft rolls and contended that the amount of compensation payable to him should have been fixed at higher figures. According to the appellant, when these objections were heard by the compensation officers the State was represented by the Naib Tahsildars of the two tahsils but the allegation is not accepted on behalf of the State and the authority of the Naib Tahsildars to represent the State during the hearing of the objections is also disputed. It is, however, conceded that the compensation officers heard the various objections filed. The objections in respect of some villages were accepted while those in respect of other villages were rejected. As no appeals were preferred against the orders allowing the objections those orders became final. The compensation assessment rolls in respect of the villages lying in Tahsil Mirzapur were signed and sealed on various dates, the last date being 31st January 1955, and the total amount by which the appellant's compensation in respect of the villages lying in that tahsil was enhanced was about Rupees 3,01,348/5/-. The compensation rolls in respect of the villages lying in Tahsil Chunar were also signed and sealed on various dates and the amount of compensation payable to the appellant was increased by several thousands. The compensation bonds in respect of the villages in the Chunar Tahsil were even handed over to the appellant by the 22nd July 1955. Some of the bonds to which the appellant became entitled in respect of his villages in Tahsil Mirzapur were also received by him before the 22nd July 1955 but bonds worth about 3 1/2 lacs were still to be delivered. On the 22nd August 1955 two applications were filed on behalf of the State before the two compensation officers praying that the orders accepting the appellant's objections in respect of the draft compensation assessment rolls be set aside and the objections be restored to their original numbers for the purpose of rehearing. The ground on which the restoration was claimed was that no notice of the objections had been issued to the State and the State having no knowledge of the objections having been filed could not appear to contest them. It was alleged that the State came to know of the orders passed in respect of the objections for the first time on the 22nd July 1955. The appellant opposed these applications for restoration on grounds of fact as well as law. The question of fact he raised was that the State knew of the objections and that the Naib Tahsildars on behalf of the State had actually taken part in the hearing of the objections. As it was the case of the appellant that there were documents in the possession of the state and its officers which could conclusively show that the State and its officers had full knowledge of the objections filed by the appellant, on the 11th November 1955 the appellant made an application to the compensation officer, Tahsil Mirzapur, for the discovery and production of certain documents: mentioned in the application. The application was made under Rules 12 and 14 of Order XI of the C. P. C. Earlier, on the 23rd September 1955 and the 4th October 1955 the appellant had also applied for the inspection of the records of the compensation officers. The applications for discovery and production were orally opposed and with- out filing an affidavit the State claimed privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the documents which the appellant wanted to be produced. The applications for inspection, discovery and production were rejected by two orders dated the 11th November 1955. A similar application for discovery and production was made before the compensation officer of Tahsil Chunar on the 15th December 1955. This application was also opposed on the ground that the documents were privileged and could not be produced. This application for discovery and production was also rejected by the compensation officer, Chunar, on the 5th January 1955. Subsequently, the cases pending before the compensation officers of Tahsil Mirzapur and Tahsil Chunar were consolidated by an order of the District Judge dated the 6th October 1956 and all the cases were directed to be heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mirzapur, who was the compensation officer of Tahsil Mirzapur. On the 22nd August 1957 the appellant filed two fresh applications for discovery, production and inspection under Order XI of the C. P. C. Some of the documents mentioned in these applications were new documents which had not been mentioned in the earlier applications. On the 31st August 1957 the State filed objections to these fresh applications and one of the grounds urged was that similar applications having already been rejected the fresh applications were not maintainable. Privilege was also claimed in respect of the documents mentioned in the applications. Sri R.K. Misra, the compensation officer, Tahsil Mirzapur, was requested to decide as a preliminary issue the question whether in view of the earlier rejection of the applications for inspection, discovery and production the fresh applications with those prayers were maintainable. By his order dated the 12th October 1957 Sri R.K. Misra held that he could reconsider the question and directed the State to file its objections to the fresh applications. Before Sri Misra could decide the matter he was transferred and replaced by Sri C.D. Upadhya as compensation officer, Tahsil Mirzapur, Sri Upadhya by his orders dated the 31st March 1958 took a different view in respect of the matter. He set aside the order of his predecessor Sri Misra by which the latter had decided to reopen the question and being of opinion that the controversy could not be reopened, Sri Upadhya rejected the two applications made by the appellant for discovery, inspection and production on the 22nd August 1957. The appellant then filed the petition out of which this appeal has arisen. A perusal of the grounds mentioned in the petition and the reliefs claimed therein will show that the scope of the petition, as it was framed, was limited. Eight of the nine grounds' mentioned in the petition related to the question of inspection, discovery and production and contained the reasons for which the order of Sri Upadhya dated the 31st March 1958 was being challenged. Besides the prayer for interim relief and costs, the main prayers in the petition were: (1) To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari to respondent No. 1 to bring up his order dated 31st March, 1958 for being quashed (ii) to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other direction to respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the petitioner's application under Order XI, Rules 12 and 14, C. P. C. in accordance with law; and (iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction that may be deemed fit and proper. The ninth ground mentioned in the petition was in a sense wider. It said: "(9) Because the respondent No. 2 is in the position of a plaintiff and no question of subsequent knowledge of the date of hearing can apply in his case even if it be held that the objections filed by the petitioner were decided ex parte."

(3.) Though in the petition as it stood at that time there was no prayer for quashing the entire proceedings started by the applications of the State for restoration of the objections filed by the appellant for the purposes of their being reheard, this ninth ground could be said to relate to that matter. Two additional grounds Nos. 10 and 11 were permitted to be added to the petition by an order dated the 5th May 1958. The tenth ground also related to the matter of production of documents but the eleventh ground was: "(11) Because the assessment rolls have become final and they cannot be reopened at this stage." The addition of this eleventh ground had the effect of increasing considerably the scope of the Writ petition. The scope was no longer confined to the question of inspection, discovery and production or to the validity, of the orders of the 31st March 1958. By the addition of this ground the entire question as to whether the State could get the objections of the appellant restored to their original numbers for the purpose of rehearing got included within the scope of the petition. A subsequent application was made for adding a relief to the prayer also. The new relief was that the entire proceedings for the restoration of the objections be quashed by a writ of certiorari. This application for amending the prayer was directed to be put up along with the petition at the time of hearing. Apparently when the petition was heard this application for amending the prayer was not pressed and no orders were, therefore, passed in respect of it. The prayer for amending the relief was not pressed at the time of the hearing of the appeal also as it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the third general relief claimed in the petition as it was originally framed was enough to entitle the court to issue a proper writ or direction if it was satisfied that a case for the issue of that writ or direction had been made out.