CHITTARANJAN BANERJEE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LAKHIMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a common judgement we propose to dispose of the two Civil Rules as they stem from the common orders and involve common questions of law and facts.

(2.) A few material facts may be narrated to bring up the legal issue in the proper setting :-

(3.) DR . J.C. Medhi, the learned Advocate General, Assam, has strenuously argued that on a true and correct interpretation of the terms of the bond, it is evident that the agreement was entered by the petitioners with the Deputy Commissioner. To all intents and purposes the bond was executed by the petitioners in favour of the State of Assam. The learned Advocate General did not seriously contest that the provisions of Clause 16 of the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950, are not applicable in the present case. However, the learned Advocate General has submitted that reading as a whole, the expressed intention of the parties points to the only conclusion that the petitioners had executed the bond in favour of the State of Assam authorising the Deputy Commissioner to realise the amounts secured by the petitioners under "the Regulation". In regard to the other contention raised by the petitioners, the learned Advocate General submits that they are misconceived inasmuch as the Land Sale cases were not initiated by the Deputy Commissioner to realise the defalcated amount by putting the properties secured by the bond in question to sale. The Deputy Commissioner, according to the learned Advocate General commenced the Land Sale cases to put the properties pledged by the petitioners under the bond executed by them for the years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 to sale.