SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. KARIM BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal brought by the Secretary of State for India in Council against a decision of the Allahabad Improvement Trust Tribunal, dated 6 October 1932, awarding to the respondent a sum of Rs. 11,174 as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the respondent's interest in certain property.

(2.) In the year 1927 notice was given by the Local Government to acquire certain premises and a large enclosure owned by Mohammad Hasan and situate at No. 10, Mirgunj, Allahabad. In part of these premises the respondent, Karim Bux, resided and in another portion he carried on the, business of manufacturing steel trunks. It would appear that Karim Bux had previously held under some former lease; but such had expired, and the most that can be said of his rights at the time of the notice is that he was holding over on the terms of the original tenancy. On 15th March 1928 the respondent appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and filed objections to the acquisition which are printed at page 1 of the paper-book. In those objections he stated that he was in occupation of part of the premises to be acquired and that in consequence of the acquisition he would suffer serious loss amounting to about Rupees 19,000 odd. On 17 March 1928 the Land Acquisition Officer ordered that the objection be put up with the file. On 24 April 1929, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award in favour of Mohammad Hasan, the owner of the property, and in this award no mention whatsoever is made of Karim Bux g objection and nothing was given to him. In September a October, 1929 the Collector took possession of the property on behalf of the Improvement Trust. On 24 October 1930 the respondent, Karim Bux, presented an application praying that his objections or application of 15 March 1928 be taken up and disposed of. This document is printed at pages 23 and 24 of the paper-book. Upon this application the Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on 28 October 1930 in these terms: The tenant was dispossessed from the building more, than a year ago. He should have filed an appeal within the fixed period. Nothing can be done now. Rejected. File.

(3.) On 29 October 1930, the respondent applied for copies of this order, and on 11 November 1930 copies were supplied to him. On 17 December 1930 the applicant made an application which is printed at p. 2 of the paper-book. This application is headed "before the Tribunal, Improvement Trust, Allahabad, through the Land Acquisition Officer, Allahabad." It was sent to the Land Acquisition Officer and the office made a report which is printed at page 3 of the paper-book. This application appears to have been treated as an application for reference to the Tribunal, and on 17 December 1930 the Land Acquisition Officer directed it to be forwarded to the Tribunal. On 12 January 1931 notice was issued by the Tribunal to the Secretary of State for India, and in duo course a written statement was filed, issues framed, and the matter heard by the Tribunal. After a considerable body of evidence had been taken, Mr. Zahur Ahmad, the Chairman of the Tribunal, wrote a draft judgment on the questions of law and fact which had arisen and sent the judgment to his two colleagues for their perusal and approval. One of his colleagues, Hafiz Ghazanfarullah, returned the judgment on 19 September 1932 requesting the President to give his opinion as to the amount of compensation which he thought should be given. In the draft judgment the Chairman had not indicated what he considered to be the correct amount of compensation to be awarded. The Chairman, Mr. Zahur Ahmad, then wrote an addition to his judgment in which he stated that the amount of compensation which should be awarded was Rs. 11,174. He again forwarded the draft judgment to his colleagues, Hafiz Ghazanfarullah and Mr. M.D. Jaiswal. On 29 September 1932 Hafiz Ghazanfarullah noted that in the opinion of himself and his colleague it was premature to give judgment in the case, and he points out that the plaintiff had applied to have a witness recalled and they could not understand why this objection had been rejected. They further thought that the evidence of the owner, Mohammad Hasan, would be valuable in determining the case. Hence he thought that the case was not ripe for judgment without this further evidence. Mr. Jaiswal on 30 September 1932 was also of the same opinion. He points out that the question of procedure was a matter to be regulated entirely by the President; and that being so, he was unable to offer any opinion at that time. Mr. Zahur Ahmad did not communicate further with his colleagues and on 6 October 1932 he signed the judgment which is now under appeal, awarding to the respondent Rs. 11,174.