LAWS(GAU)-1964-3-4

SULOCHANA CHOWDHURANI Vs. THE COMPENSATION OFFICER AND ORS.

Decided On March 10, 1964
Sulochana Chowdhurani Appellant
V/S
The Compensation Officer And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the common question of the interpretation of the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaris Act, 1951 (Assam Act XVIII of 1951) has been raised in these two petitions under Art -M|28 of the Constitution, they are disposed of by one common judgment.

(2.) THE facts in Civil Rule No. 251 of 1962 are that the Petitioner Sulochana Chowdhurani is the widow of one Jitendra Narayan Chowdhury. One Birendra Narayan Chowdhury who was renamed as Jagadindra Narayan Chowdhury after adoption by the Petitioner Sulochana Chowdhurani, inherited annas (sic)/2/6 pies share of Prabatjoar Estate from his father prior to the said adoption and after the said adoption also inherited annas -/2/11 53/56 pies share of Mechpara Estate' as an adopted son of Jitendra Narayan Chowdhury Jagadindra Narayan Chowdhury. the adopted son of the present Petitioner died on 26th August 1950 He was unmarried and the Petitioner as the adoptive mother alleges that she inherited the aforesaid shares of Jagadindra Narayan Chowdhury in the Prabatjoar Estate and the Mechpara Estate in the Goalpara District The Petitioner then moved for the mutation of her name in respect of her shares in the aforesaid Estates and certain objections were filed by the present Respondent No. 4 Tejendra Narayan Chowdhury and his late brother Probat Chandra Chowdhury. The Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara by his order dated the 7th March, 1957 mutated the name of the Petitioner in respect of her share in the Estate.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 5 Nihar Kumari Chowdhurani in the Civil Rule No. 252 of 1962 who claims to be the co -widow of Jitendra Narayan Chowdhury, has also filed a suit in forma pauperis claiming her share in the property. The suit and the appeal before this Court are still pending. It appears' that objection, was taken that the suit was not maintainable. The opposite party No. 4 and opposite party No. 5 in rule No. 252/62 made applications before the Compensation Officer purporting to be one under Section 21(5) of the Act, raising a dispute as to the title of the present Petitioner to receive the compensation amount.