UMANANDA ROY Vs. THE COMPENSATION OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification dated the 27th February 1959 the tenures of the Petitioner Umananda Roy and his brothers were acquired by the State of Assam with effect from the 15th April 1959 under the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 - Assam Act XVIII of 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). On, the 19th November 1959 a notice was issued by the Compensation Officer, Goalpara, Dhubri to Sachindra Mohan Roy Petitioner 's brother asking him to submit a return under the Act, Sachindra Mohan Roy on the 7th April 1960 submitted a return showing all the particulars and all the information required in form 'B' for ascertainment or determination of compensation. By an order dated the 25th July, 1960 the Compensation Officer asked the Manager of the Gauripur Acquired Estate to prepare the Draft Compensation Statement on certain datas. The Compensation Officer prepared a Draft Compensation State merit and published it, purporting to have been issued on the 9th January, 1961 and a copy of this was sent only to Sachindra Mohan Roy. The contention of the Petitioner is that no copy was sent to him. The Petitioner 's brother Sachindra Mohan Roy by an application dated the 17th March 1961 filed objection against the Draft Compensation Statement but that was rejected by an order dated the 21st March 1961 on the ground that it was time barred. Thereafter the Compensation Statement was finally published on the 11th July, 1961 and the Compensation Officer furnished the certificate on the 3rd August 1961 to the effect that the draft has been finally published under Section 18(2) of the Act. On the 18th July, 1961 the Compensation Officer by his order passed an award whereby the amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 10,784.10 nP. for the entire tenures numbering about 18 and covering an area of 980 bighas, 18 kalas and 14 dhurs of land and passed an order for payment of ad -interim compensation of Rs. 602.83 nP. for the period of two years and two months and twenty -five days. A copy of the final compensation statement was sent to the Petitioner. The Petitioner 's brother on the 22nd August 1961 filed an application before the Compensation Officer, Dhubri contending inter alia that in preparation of compensation statement Khamar lands of the Petitioner were not taken into consideration at all and no compensation whatsoever was paid in respect of the said Khamar lands and that the value of the said lands was much more than the lands in possession of the tenants. A report was called for by the Compensation Officer from the Manager. Gauripur Acquired Estate, and a report was called for from the Circle Inspector by - the Manager, Gauripur Acquired Estate. The Circle Inspector estimated the annual income of the Khas land of the Petitioner to be Rs. 8,000 and thereafter the Manager, Gauripur Acquired Estate of Respondent No. 2 submitted a report on the 30th November 1961 to the Compensation Officer about the value. The Compensation Officer by his order dated the 4th January 1962 held that rents in kind realised by the tenure holders' were excluded from the Compensation,' Statement as the tenure holders failed to produce any Touzis in respect of the land, but dismissed the application on the ground that he had no power to revise the final compensation statement. Representation was filed before the Government against this order. But no orders have been passed. In these circumstances the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner Umananda Roy under Article 226 of the Constitution for setting aside the entire proceedings of the compensation.

(2.) MAINLY the ground is that the Compensation Officer violated the mandatory provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder which required him to send a copy of the draft compensation statement to every co -sharer including the Petitioner separately and as the notice was not sent, the entire proceedings are ultra vires.

(3.) THUS two main questions arise for consideration in this case, firstly whether the provision requiring sending a copy of the draft compensation statement to each tenure holder has or has not been complied with in the present case and secondly whether the provision is mandatory.