RAJAH NILMONI SINGH Vs. RAM BUNDHOO ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE history of this case, as far as it is material to the judgment, is as follows: The Government of India, requiring land for a public purpose under the provisions of Act X. of 1870, gave the requisite notices, and proceeded to take fifty-eight bighas of land within the zemindary of the Rajah of Pachete. These fifty-eight bighas were occupied by persons who held under the title of jagirdirs, but were undoubtedly subject to the superior tenure of the Rajah, and may be described as mal lands of his zemindary. The Act referred to, No. X. of 1870, contains a number of elaborate provisions applicable to the acquisition of lands and the payment of the purchase-money for them. Under the circumstances of this case it will be enough to refer to three of the clauses. It appears that in certain cases an award of compensation may be made by the Collector, as between the Government and the claimants. Section 14 is in these terms :

(2.) THE proceedings in this case were under these sections. Under Section 14, the Collector made an award for the whole amount of the compensation, which was, in round numbers, Rs. 15,000. There was a dispute between the Rajah and the tenants, as they may be called, with reference to the apportionment of the amount between them. The question was duly referred to a Judge sitting alone to decide the proportions in which the persons interested were entitled to share, and that Judge made a decision in pursuance of such reference, whereby he awarded to the Rajah Rs. 84, and to the other claimants, of whom there are a great number, the rest of the compensation money. The Rajah did not appeal from this decision, as he had a right to do, but he brings the present suit for the purpose of in effect setting it aside. In his plaint he characterises his suit as--"A suit to recover Rs. 13,000, in deposit in the collectorate of this district, on account of compensation for fifty-eight bighas five cottas," and he contends that he is entitled to a far larger amount than that which has been awarded to him. In other words, he brings the suit for the purpose of determining the very question which had been determined according to special statutory process by a Judge from whose decision he did not appeal.

(3.) THEIR Lordships are of opinion that the Courts in India, who both concur on this point, have rightly held that this proviso applies only to persons whose rights have not been adjudicated upon in pursuance of the Sections 38 and 39, and that it has not the effect, which it would certainly not be reasonable to attribute to it, of permitting a person whose claim has been adjudicated upon in the manner pointed out by the Act, to have that claim reopened and again heard in another suit. Their Lordships are of opinion that the provisions in this Act for the settling of compensation are intended to be final; and that the amount and distribution of the compensation having been settled in this case by a competent Court, and the decision not having been appealed against, the settlement is final, and the present suit cannot be maintained. They will, therefore, humbly advise Her Majesty that this judgment be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.