BAJRANABH SEN Vs. COLLECTOR AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by an intermediary under sec. 65 (3) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the estate of Shri Bajranabh Sen, the ex-Istimardar of Khawas was resumed under the provisions of the Act and a notification under sec. 4 was issued by the then Government of Ajmer State on 1st of August, 1955. On the issue of the said notification, the estate of the appellant vested in the State Government and thereafter proceedings for determination of the compensation under the provision of the Act and the rules made thereunder were taken by the Compensation Officer. THE appellant filed under Article 32 of the Constitution a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act and the consequent vesting of the estate in the Government, and, therefore, he did not think it necessary to take part in the proceedings started by the Compensation Officer to determine the compensation of his estate. It was under this impression that he did not file any statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act within the prescribed period of two months from the date of the notification. After the expiry of the period of two months, the Compensation Officer issued a notice under sec. 13 of the Act to the appellant, but the appellant avoided the service of the notice on him. THE Compensation Officer, therefore, after taking necessary data from the record-of-rights and other relevant papers submitted his report to the Compensation Commissioner under sec. 13 (1) of the Act. On receipt of the report from the Compensation Officer, the Compensation Commissioner served the appellant intermediary with a notice under sub-section (3) of sec. 13 of the Act duly accompanied by a copy of the report of the Compensation Officer to afford him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It was after the receipt of this notice under sub-section (3) of sec. 13 of the Act that the intermediary preferred to appear before the Compensation Commissioner and filed his objections and also submitted a statement of claim in the prescribed form A. I. 7. THE Compensation Commissioner after the receipt of the objections and the statement of the claim filed by the appellant finalised the compensation amount and observed that rule 21 was of mandatory nature, and as intermediary had failed to file his claim within the prescribed period, he had lost his rights to submit the statement of his claim at that late stage. THE learned Compensation Commissioner also expressed his opinion that in case the intermediary failed to file the statement of claim under sec. 12 of the Act he could refer only to the entries of the record-of rights and the annual registers, and as of right he could not claim to adduce any other evidence to prove his objections. In view of this opinion, the learned Compensation Commissioner did not like to go into the details supplied by the intermediary in his statement of claim and the report submitted by the Compensation Officer was, therefore, accepted by him without any modification. It is against this order of the Compensation Commissioner dated 11th May, 1956, that the intermediary has preferred to come in appeal before us.