Skip to content


The State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Riaz Ahmad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Leave to Appeal No. 57 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Raj152
ActsConstitution of India - Article 133(1); Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955
AppellantThe State of Rajasthan
RespondentShri Riaz Ahmad and ors.
Advocates: R.A. Gupta, Dy. Govt. Adv.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases Referred and M. Venkayya v. P. Venkatarama Rao
Excerpt:
- - 5. as regards the value of the subject-matter of the dispute, it is clear that the requirements-of article 133(1)(a) are satisfied......the law. as discussed above, in the present case, the compensation commissioner shall have to hold an inquiry and determine the rights of the parties according to law. the order of this court cannot therefore be deemed, to have the effect of disposing of all the rights of the parties for compensation under the ajmer abolition of intermediaries and land reforms act, 1955. the order cannot therefore be deemed to be a final older for purposes of leave to appeal to the supreme court.6. the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Judgment:

Ranawat, C.J.

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court dated the 21st August, 1961.

2. Shri Riaz Ahmad and 39 others claimed shares in the Jagir village Baneori, Girdawari Circle Srinagar, Tehsil Ajmer, and they claimed compensation for resumption of their interest in the Jagir in accordance with the provisions of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (No. III of 1955). The Collector of Ajmer objected to these claims on the ground that the shares should be treated as one unit for determination of compensation under the Act and that the compensation should not be assessed by treating them as separate estates. The Compensation Commissioner upheld the objection of the Collector and proceeded to determine the amount of compensation by treating the village to be one estate. Riaz Ahmad and 39 others came in appeal to this Court from the order of the Compensation Commissioner, which was allowed, and it was held that they were entitled to compensation on the basis of their individual shares in the village. The case was accordingly remanded to the Compensation Commissioner for determination of the amounts of compensation. The State has filed this application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the said order of remand.

3. It is urged that the total amount of compensation payable in the case is more than Rs. 20,000/- and the value of the subject-matter of the appeal is consequently more than Rs. 20,000/-. It is therefore claimed that the State is entitled, as a matter of right, to go in appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this Court. As regards the question whether the order of this Court can be construed to be a final one within the meaning of Article 133(1)(a), it is contended that the rights of the parties have been finally determined by the said order and that it only remains to calculate the amounts of compensation and so the order is, in substance, a final one. The decisions of the Supreme Court in S. Gurdwara Praban-dhak Committee v. Shiv Ratan Deo, (S) AIR 1955 SC 576 Finn Ramchand Manjimal v. Firm Gover-dhandas Vishandas Ratanchand AIR 1920 PC 86 and M. Venkayya v. P. Venkatarama Rao, AIR 1956 Andhra 126 have been cited in support of the above contention.

4. Notices were served on the opposite parties, but they did not care tq put in their appearance.

5. As regards the value of the subject-matter of the dispute, it is clear that the requirements-of Article 133(1)(a) are satisfied. The only question which requires determination is whether the order of this Court can be deemed to be final. What has been determined by this Court is the individual status of the claimants as estate holders. It will now be for the Compensation Commissioner to determine the total amount of the income of the property after an inquiry, and then to ascertain the share of each individual claimant and the amount of compensation on that basis. We cannot therefore accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that what remains to be done in the Court below is the mere passing of a final order on the basis of the decision of this Court. An important question has no doubt been determined about the status of the claimants, but that does not finally dispose of their rights. The amounts of compensation have to be arrived at by the officer concerned after holding an inquiry regarding the individual claims and also the total income of the property. The decision of this Court does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties and the compensation Commissioner shall have to embark on an inquiry as to the relevant facts in order to determine the amount of compensation payable to each claimant. The decisions referred to by Mr. Rama Avtar lay down the proposition that if an order finally disposes of the rights of the parties and what remains to be done is the passing of a formal order in consequence thereof, the order may be deemed to be final even though the case may have been remanded to the lower Court with a direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law. As discussed above, in the present case, the Compensation Commissioner shall have to hold an inquiry and determine the rights of the parties according to law. The order of this Court cannot therefore be deemed, to have the effect of disposing of all the rights of the parties for compensation under the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955. The order cannot therefore be deemed to be a final Older for purposes of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

6. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.


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