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