Skip to content


Collector of Kamrup and ors. Vs. Kamakhyaram Barooah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Constitution
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSupreme Court Appeal Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of 1958
Judge
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133 and 133(1); Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immoveable Property Act, 1952 - Sections 23
AppellantCollector of Kamrup and ors.
RespondentKamakhyaram Barooah and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.M. Lahiri, Adv. General, D.N. Medhi, Senior Govt. Adv. and R.K. Goswami, Junior Govt. Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.K. Ghose, U.K. Goswami, P.N. Das and A.R. Barua, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....is certainly a matter of substantial importance.it may be that when we were dealing with the matter the point was not elaborately placed before us and sufficient importance was not given to this point, but that does not mean that the point is not of substantial importance. before us it was not seriously contested that the subordinate judge had no jurisdiction to declare the acquisition proceeding invalid as no appeal or cross objection was filed by the state.mainly the effect was made to justify the order on the ground that the court below was justified in upholding the amount of compensation even on the finding that the acquisition was invalid which on the face of the order could not be justified. the second point raised by the advocate general is that in view of section 23 of act.....
Judgment:

Mehrotra, J.

1. These are three applications far leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133 of the Constitution against our judgment dated 10-2-1958. In our order in connection with the review petitions filed and disposed of today we have dealt with the facts of these cases elaborately. Two points which have been urged by the counsel for the applicants are that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction in reference to go into the validity of the acquisition proceedings and secondly it is contended that in view of the provision of Section 23 of Act 30 of 1952 (The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952) the acquisition even if invalid, has been validated and consequently this court could not have declared the order of acquisition invalid.

A preliminary objection has been taken by the

opposite parties to the maintainability of these applications. It is urged that the order is not a final order

within the meaning of Article 133 of the Constitution

and secondly it is urged that the valuation of each

of the appeals is not more than rupees twenty thou

sand, consequently appeal would not lie as a matter

of right under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. So

far as the question of the finality of the order is concerned it is necessary to examine the order. Our

order is in the following terms:

'Therefore the whole thing relating to the award particularly the rate or amount of compensation and respective title of the claimants, must be kept open and the matter must go back to the Collector for proceeding with the acquisition according to the provisions of law'.

The order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside the award on the ground that the acquisition proceedings were ultra vires has been affirmed and the order in this respect finally disposes of the controversy between the parties. What remains pending under our order is the acquisition proceedings and not the, award. Cases where the order of remand is made in a suit it has now been held in series of cases that such orders are not final orders, as even after the remand the matter remains to be finally disposed of and the suit remains pending, but what remains open by our orders is the acquisition proceeding and not the award. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that our order is not a final order.

As regards the second objection as to the valuation of the appeals, even if it be held that the value is below rupees twenty thousand, the case is otherwise fit for (a) certificate under Article 133(1)(c) as it raises substantial questions of law of general importance. The point whether the Subordinate Judge has got jurisdiction to go into the question of the validity of the acquisition proceedings in reference is certainly a matter of substantial importance.

It may be that when we were dealing with the matter the point was not elaborately placed before us and sufficient importance was not given to this point, but that does not mean that the point is not of substantial importance. Before us it was not seriously contested that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to declare the acquisition proceeding invalid as no appeal or cross objection was filed by the State.

Mainly the effect was made to justify the order on the ground that the court below was justified in upholding the amount of compensation even on the finding that the acquisition was invalid which on the face of the order could not be justified. The second point raised by the Advocate General is that in view of Section 23 of Act XXX of 1953 the acquisition order will be deemed to be valid, even if it is irregular. This point was not pressed before us but is of sufficient general importance. We accordingly certify that these cases are fit for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.

H. Deka, J.

2. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //