Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
AZMAT AZIM KHAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BOARD OF REVENUE, UTTAR PRADESH, ALLAHABAD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/04/1971
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
BENCH:
RAY, A.N.
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 1429 1971 SCR 440
ACT:
U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934-U.P. Abolition of
Zamindari and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 1951)-
Compensation bonds payable to intermediary whether can be
withheld and payment on them whether can be stopped in order
to satisfy decree against intermediary under 1934
Act--Effect of ss. 23A, 23B of 1934 Act and s. 70 of 1950
Act.
HEADNOTE:
There was a decree under the provisions of the U.P.
Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 against the appellant’s father
on the basis of a mortgage deed. The decree was transferred
to the Deputy Commissioner for liquidation of debts.
Meanwhile the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1951 came into force. Compensation for proprietary rights
as an intermediately vested in the State Government became
payable to the judgment debtor. On the death of his father
the appellant and his brother became entitled to his
property as well as the compensation payable to him. The
appellant and his brother received bonds of the aggregate
value of Rs. 64,000. Bonds of the face value of Rs. 32,000
remained with the compensation officer. In 1959 the decree-
holder applied to the Collector for an order that the
appellant and his brother do return the bonds which they had
received from the compensation officer failing which their
properties were to be attached. The matter went up to the
Board of Revenue. The Board asked the Collector to take one
or the other of three steps, namely, (1) to stop payment of
instalment money on the bonds by the treasuries or (2)
direct the compensation officer to hand over bonds of the
face value of Rs. 32,000 remaining with him for the
liquidation of the debts or (3) to attach the movable
properties of the appellant and his brother for the
liquidation of debts’ The appellant thereafter made an
application to the High Court under Art. 226 of the
Constitution for an order quashing the order and direction
to the Board of Revenue. The Division Bench, in appeal
against the order of the Single Judge, quashed the direction
of the Board of Revenue according to which the properties of
the appellant and his brother were to be attached. The High
Court upheld the other two orders of the Board of Revenue in
regard to stoppage of payment of instalment money on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
bonds by the treasuries and direction to the Compensation
Officer to hand over the bonds of the face value of Rs.
32,000 remaining with him for liquidation of the debts. in
appeal to this Court the appellant contended that the Board
of Revenue did not have power to issue the said directions.
HELD: By reason of the provisions contained in s. 70 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and
s. 23A of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 the
compensation money is sent for by the Collector for the
purpose of liquidation of secured debts on which decree is
passed. The Compensation Officer under r. 77(1) of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1953 could issue
notices to the intermediary directing him to take the bonds
because under s. 18 of the 1934 Act the decree holder
becomes entitled to recover the amount of the decree in the
manner and to the extent mentioned in 1934 Act. The proviso
441
to s. 18 of the 1934 Act enacts that the secured debt shall
be recoverable from the compensation and rehabilitation
grant as though the security had not been extinguished.
[445C-D]
Further, s. 23A and s. 23B of the 1934-Act require that the
amount from the bonds on account of compensation or
rehabilitation grant received by Collector shall be expended
or utilised by the Collector in liquidation of the amount
of the secured debt. Under s. 23B of the 1934-Act the bonds
are received byCollector in pursuance of the requisition
under S. 23A of the 1934 Act. The absence of the service of
a requisition cannot confer a right on thejudgment debtor to
take away the compensation money or bonds. The principle
is actus curia neminem gravabit. [445E-F]
The decree holder under the provisions of the relevant
statutes was entitled to be paid out of the compensation
grant monies in satisfaction of the decree. If the
Collector had required the Compensation Officer under s. 23A
of the 1934 Act to place at his disposal pursuant to s. 70
of the 1950 Act the compensation money, the bonds could not
have been taken delivery of by the appellant. The Board of
Revenue rightly gave the directions to secure compliance
with the provisions of the statute and performance of the
statutory duty by the Collector as well as the Cornpenation
Officer. The appellants were not entitled to receive the
bonds without satisfying the decree. That is why the Board
of Revenue correctly directed the stoppage by the treasuries
of payment of instalment on the bonds. [445G-H]
The other direction of the Board of Revenue requiring the
Compensation Officer to hand over bonds remaining with the
Compensation Officer was in aid of valid compliance with ss.
23A and 23B of the 1934 Act as well as s. 70 of the 1950
Act. [446A]
The jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Revenue
touched directly on the performance of statutory obligations
by statutory authorities. The High Court rightly upheld the
directions of the Board of Revenue. [446B]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2108 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 15, 1965
of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal
No. 82 of 1963.
Danial A. Latifi and M. I. Khowaja, for the appellant.
C. B. Agarwala and Akhtar Husain, for respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
Ray, J.-This appeal is by certificate from the judgment
dated 15th January, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court.
The appellant son of Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan a zamindar
of a number of villages in the District of Kheri, Uttar
Pradesh impeached the orders of the Board of Revenue of
Uttar Pradesh dated 30 August, 1960 and 6 September, 1960
whereby the Board
442
issued three directions. The first was to stop payment of
instalment money or the bonds by the treasuries. The second
was to direct the Compensation Officer to hand over bonds of
the face value of Rs. 32,000 reported to be remaining with
him for liquidation of debts. The third was an order
attaching movable and immovable properties belonging to the
appellant and his brother.for liquidation of debts.
The principal question in this appeal is whether the first
res-pondent, the Board of Revenue Uttar Pradesh had
authority to pass, the order impugned in this appeal.
The third respondent Raja Shatranjai the decree-holder was
a creditor of the appellant’s father Sardar Mujibul Rahman
Khan on the basis of a mortgage deed. Raja Shatranjai
obtained a decree on the said mortgage debt for Rs.
1,31,040-1-0 and Rs. 1931-1-0 as costs. The decree is dated
28 September, 1939. The decree was passed under the
provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Encumbered Estates Act, 1934
(hereinafter referred to as the1934 Act). The decree was
passed on the application of Sardar Mujibul Rahman Khan
under section 4 of the 1934 Act for the liquidation of his
debts. The debtor was a zamindar in the District of
Lakhimpur Kheri. The decree was transferred to the Deputy
Commissioner of Kheri for liquidation of debts.
Meanwhile the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms.
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act) came
into, force. The proprietary rights of the intermediaries
vested in the State Government and the intermediaries were
entitled to receiver compensation in lieu thereof. The
judgment-debtor was an intermediary. Notices were issued to
the intermediaries to take delivery of the bonds or receive
payment in cash on specified dates. The appellant on the
death of his father became entitled to 2/3rd of the
Zamindari property and compensation therefore. He took
delivery of the compensation bonds of the value of Rs.
42,750/from the Compensation Officer, Lakhimpur while bonds
of the value of Rs. 21,250 were received by his brother
Hikmat Hakim Khan. The total amount of bonds received by
the appellant and his brother aggregated Rs. 64,000.
On 14 April, 1959 the decree-holder applied to the
Collector, Kheri for an order that the appellant and his
brother do return the bonds which they had received from the
Compensation Officer failing which their movable and
immovable properties to the extent of these bonds be
attached for liquidation of their debts. The Collector on
17 August, 1959 rejected the application. The decree-holder
preferred an appeal.. The appeal was dismissed by the
Additional Commissioner, Lucknow on. 17 February, 1960. The
decree-holder thereupon commenced revision proceedings
before
443
the Board of Revenue. On 30 August, 1960 a member of the
Board of Revenue allowed the revision. On 6 September, 1960
another member of the Board of Revenue concurred in the
order. The Board asked the Collector to take one or other
of the three steps, namely, the treasuries to stop payment
of money on installment in respect of the compensation bonds
or direct the Compensation Officer to hand over bonds of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
face value of Rs. 32,000 reported to be remaining with him
for the liquidation of the debts or to attach the movable
properties of the appellant and his brother for the
liquidation of debts.
The appellant thereafter made an application to the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for an order
quashing the order and directions of the Board of Revenue.
The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Board of
Revenue save and except the direction directing the
Compensation Officer to hand over bonds of the face value of
Rs. 32,000 reported to be remaining with him for liquidation
of debts.
Thereafter the decree--holder preferred an appeal. The
Bench of the High Court was divided in their opinion. The
matter was placed before the third learned Single Judge.
The order of the High Court was that direction No. 3 of the
Board of Revenue, namely, attachment of movable and
immovable properties of the appellant and his brother was
quashed. The High Court upheld the other two orders of the
Board of Revenue in regard to stoppage of payment of
installment money on the bonds by the treasuries and
direction on the Compensation Officer to hand over the bonds
of the face value of Rs. 32,000 remaining with him for
liquidation of the debts.
Counsel for the appellant contended that the Board of Reve-
nue did not have any power to issue the directions. In the
present case, the decree was passed under section 14 of the
1934 Act. Under section 19 of the 1934 Act the Special
Judge passing the decree is to send the same to the
Collector for execution in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter V of the 1934 Act. The Special Judge under section
19 of the 1934 Act is also to inform the Collector of the
nature and extent of the amount of the secured debt which is
not legally recoverable otherwise than out of the
compensation and rehabilitation grants payable to the
Landlord in respect of the mortgaged estate. The U. P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as the 1950 Act) came into force on 26 January,
1951. As. a result of the 1950 Act sections 23A and 23B
were introduced into the 1934 Act. Section 23A speaks of
compensation and rehabilitation grant to be placed at the
disposal of the Collector. Section 23B
444
speaks of liquidation of secured debts recoverable both from
compensation and rehabilitation grant. The sections are set
out hereunder :
"23A. Compensation and rehabilitation grant
to be placed at the disposal of the Collector
:--The Collector shall require the
Compensation Officer and Rehabilitation Grants
Officer as may be necessary to place at his
disposal in pursuance of section 70 of the U.
P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950, the amount of compensation money and
rehabilitation grant payable to the landlord
in respect of his proprietary rights in land
reported to be liable to attachment or sale
under the provisions of sub-section (2) of
section 19.
23B. Liquidation of secured debt recoverable
from compensation and under rehabilitation
grant.:--(1) Without prejudice to the
provisions of Section 8 of the U. P.
Zamindar’s Debt Reduction Act, 1952. the
amount or the bonds on account of compensation
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
or rehabilitation grant received by the
Collector in pursuance of the requisition
under Section 23-A shall be expended or
utilised by the Collector in liquidation of
the amount of the secured debt which having
regard to the provisions of the U. P.
Zamindar’s Debt Reduction Act, 1952 was
secured on the proprietary rights in land in
respect of which such money has been received.
(2) If any balance out of the compensation
and rehabilitation grant received by the
Collector in pursuance of the requisition
under Section 23-A remains in the hands of the
Collector after utilising the same in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section
(1), such balance shall be utilised by the
Collector in discharging the debts, other than
the debts, referred to in the said sub-section
in order of priority".
Both these sections of the 1934 Act refer to
section 70 of the 1950 Act. Section 70 of the
said Act is as follows :
"Compensation money to be placed at the
disposal of the Court or authority : Where
before any Court or authority any suit or
proceeding is pending which directly or
indirectly affects or is likely to affect the
right of any person to receive the whole or
part of the compensation determined under
Chapter III, the Court or authority may
require the Compensation Officer to place at
its disposal the amount so payable and
thereupon the same shall be disposed of in
accordance with the orders of such Court or
authority".
445
The Collector, therefore, by reason of the provisions of the
1934 Act and the 1950 Act requires the Compensation Officer
and the Rehabilitation Officer to place the amount of
compensation at his disposal. The Collector on receipt of
the grant is to expend or utilise the same in liquidation of
the amount of the secured debt and if the balance remains it
is to be utilised in discharging the debts other than those
mentioned in section 23-B (1) of the 1934 Act, in order of
priority.
By reason of the provisions contained in section 70 of the
1950 Act and section 23A of the 1934 Act the compensation
money is sent for by the Collector for the purpose of
liquidation of secured debt on which decree is passed. The
Compensation Officer under rule 77(1) of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 could issue notice to
the intermediary directing him to take delivery of the
bonds. The issue of a notice would not clothe the
intermediary with the right to take away the bonds because
under section 18 of the 1934 Act the decree-holder becomes
entitled to recover the amount of the decree in the manner
and to the extent mentioned in the 1934 Act. The proviso
to section 18 of the 1934 Act enacts that the secured debt
shall be recoverable from the compensation and
rehabilitation grants as though the security had not been
extinguished. The question, in the present case, is whether
the appellant could lawfully obtain delivery of the bonds
from the Compensation Officer. Sections 23A and 23B of the
1934 Act require that the amount or the bonds on account of
compensation or rehabilitation grant received by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
Collector shall be expended or utilised by the Collector in
liquidation of the amount of the secured debt. Under
section 23B of the 1934 Act the bonds are received by the
Collector in pursuance of the requisition under section 23A
of the 1934 Act. The absence of the service of a
requisition cannot confer a right on the judgment-debtor to
take away the compensation money or bonds. The principle is
actus curia neminem gravabit.[445E-F]
The decree-holder under the provisions of the relevant
statutes was entitled to be paid out of the compensation
grant monies in satisfaction of the decree. If the
Collector had required the Compensation Officer under
section 23A of the 1934 Act to place at his disposal
pursuant to section 70 of the 1950 Act the compensation
money, the bonds could not have been taken delivery of by
the appellant. The Board of Revenue rightly gave the
directions to secure compliance with the provisions of the
statute, and performance of statutory duty by the Collector
as well as the Compensation Officer. The appellants were
not entitled to, receive the bonds without satisfying the
decree. The appellants were wrong in doing so. The
appellant could not take advantage of his own wrong. That
is why the Board of Revenue correctly, directed the
446
stoppage by the treasuries of payment of instalment money on
the bonds. The other direction by the Board of Revenue
requiring the Compensation Officer to hand over the bonds
remaining with the Compensation Officer was in aid of valid
compliance with sections 23A and 23B of the 1934 Act as well
as section 70 of the 1950 Act.
The jurisdiction and authority of the Board of Revenue in
the present appeal touched directly on the performance of
statutory obligations by statutory authorities. The
compensation bonds are required by the statute to go to the
Collector for liquidation of secured debts. The judgment
debtor is not entitled to the compensation bonds without
liquidation of the debts in accordance with the provisions
of the statute.
The High Court rightly upheld the directions of the Board of
Revenue. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The parties
will pay and bear their own costs in this Court.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
447