Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Similarly, under Section 17 of the Act of 1955, it is the Collector who is to determine, in accordance with Sections 12 to 16, the total compensation payable in respect of an Inam. Thereunder, the Inamdar and any other person interested may apply in writing to the Collector for a reasonable opportunity to make his representation in relation to determination of the compensation. Section 18 of the Act of 1955 mandates that the Collector shall follow the procedure prescribed therein and give due notice to all persons interested in the compensation or in claiming a share thereof. Again, reference to the Collector in the aforestated two provisions means the primary authority, viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer. Apportionment of the compensation by such primary authority and the procedure to be followed in connection therewith is detailed in Sections 19 and 20 of the Act of 1955. Section 21 deals with claims of creditors while Section 22 relates to devolution of interest in the compensation.

18. Authority under Section 24:- (1) For the purpose of sub-Section (1) of Section 24 the District Collector shall be the prescribed authority.

(2) For the purpose of sub-Section (2) of Section 24 the Special Tribunal shall be the prescribed authority.

As regards determination of compensation under Section 17 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the primary authority, the Act of 1955 does not speak of any remedy. This is because the said provision has to be read with Section 18, which details the procedure to be followed by the primary authority while determining the compensation. As against such determination under Section 18(1), an appeal is allowed to the High Court directly under Section 27 of the Act of 1955. Further, under Section 25, the Collector may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, either suo motu or on the application from any person interested in the compensation, refer any case relating to the apportionment of such compensation, to the Special Tribunal for its decision. In turn, the Special Tribunal is also empowered under Section 26 of the Act of 1955 to entertain appeals against any orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the primary authority, in relation to apportionment of compensation, the procedure followed in relation thereto, claims of the creditors and as to devolution of interest in such compensation, under Sections 19, 20, 21 or 22. As against the orders passed by the Special Tribunal, be it under Section 25 or under Section 26, an appeal is provided to the High Court under Section 27.

These observations were quoted with approval by a Constitution Bench in HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. V/s. DILBAHAR SINGH .

The amplitude of a revision under Section 28 is therefore limited by the prescriptions thereunder and the finality on facts which attaches to orders under Section 24(1) or Section 24(2) passed by the prescribed authorities is not negated by allowing a revisionary remedy against such orders on limited grounds. That apart, it is noticed that questions relating to apportionment of compensation, the procedure followed therefor, claims of creditors and devolution of interest in the compensation which are dealt with by the Collector are made appealable to the Special Tribunal and the decision of the Special Tribunal in such appeals is further appealable to the High Court under Section 27. This being the case with issues relating to compensation, it is difficult to accept that the more crucial question relating to conferring of occupancy rights under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act of 1955 would be left to the Collector in the capacity of a primary authority with further appeal to the prescribed authority, the District Collector, with no further remedy. No doubt, the revisionary remedy against the decision of the prescribed authority, the District Collector, in this regard is not an appellate remedy but is restricted to the limited grounds under Section 28, but in the absence of such a remedy, a person aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector in the capacity of the primary authority under Section 10 and by the District Collector, in the capacity of the prescribed appellate authority under Section 24(1), would have no further remedy at all! When substantive occupancy rights are involved in terms of this adjudicatory process, it cannot be construed that Legislature intended that the order of District Collector, in the capacity of a prescribed authority in an appeal filed under Section 24(1), would have no further check or review even on limited grounds. By allowing a revision against such a decision, finality on facts is not belittled or diluted.