Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner who was a big zamindar owned a large number of villages in the Chunar and Mirzapur tahsils in the district of Mirzapur before the abolition of zamindari. After the zamindari was abolished in 1952 proceedings were started u/Ch. III of the ZA and LR Act (hereinafter called the Act for determination of compensation payable to him. Sometime in 1953 the Petitioner received notices from the Compensation Officers of Mirzapur as also Chunar tahsils informing him that draft compensation assessment rolls in his respect had been prepared and he could file objections against it if he so liked. The Petitioner filed objections within the time provided by the notices on the ground that the draft compensation assessment rolls of both the tahsiis showed lesser amount of compensation than what the Petitioner was entitled to. The Compensation Officers of both the tahsils Under Section 48 of the Act decided the objection filed by the Petitioner. No appeal was filed against any of these orders. By 31 -1 -1955 all the compensation assessment rolls in respect of the villages lying in tahsil Mirzapur were signed and sealed by the Compensation Officer and thus became final. Similarly the Compensation assessment rolls in respect of villages lying in tahsil Chunar were sealed and signed by 13 -12 -54 and became final. As a consequence of the Petitioner's objection being allowed the compensation payable to him in respect of the villages in Mirzapur tahsil was raised by Rs. 3,01,348/5/ - and that of Chunar Tahsil by several thousand rupees (the exact figures are not given). The Petitioner was given delivery of compensation bonds with regard to villages situated in Chunar tahsil a few days before 22 -7 -55. The compensation bonds in respect of villages situate in Mirzapur tahsil were also delivered to the Petitioner except to the extent of about 3 1/2 lacs of rupees which are lying with the Compensation Officer, Mirzapur. On 22 -8 -55 Respondent No. 2 (the State of UP) filed applications before the Compensation Officer Chunar as also Mirzapur tahsils praying for the setting aside of the orders accepting the objections filed by the Petitioner in respect of draft compensation assessment rolls and for restoring the various cases arising out of those objections to their original numbers for the purpose of re -hearing them. It was alleged in these applications that no notice of the proceedings arising out of these objections had been issued to Respondent No. 2 and the latter had no know ledge of these proceedings and it came to know for the first time of those orders on 22 -7 -55. These applications were supported by affidavits sworn by Shyam Narain Lal, Land Reforms Clerk, Mirzapur. On 1710 -55 the Petitioner filed objections against all the applications mentioned above inter alia on the ground that Respondent No. 2, its agents, representatives and officers had full knowledge of the objections filed by the Petitioner Under Section 46 of the Act and the proceedings arising thereon and that the applications were barred by time. These objections were supported by an affidavit sworn by the mukhtar -i -am of the Petitioner. On 11 -11 -1955 the Petitioner applied to the Compensation Officer, Mirzapur Under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 Code of Civil Procedure, for discovery and production of certain documents specified in that application on the ground that the documents mentioned in the application which were in the possession of Respondent No. 2 and its officers would conclusively prove that Respondent No. 2 and its officers had full knowledge of the Petitioner's objections against the draft compensation assessment rolls long before 22 -7 -55 and that the Naib Tahsildars Zamindari Abolition were authorised by Respondent No. 2 to represent it in all such cases. The counsel for Respondent No. 2 raised oral objections to the grant of the application mentioned above though no affidavit claiming privilege Under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2. Two other applications, one dated 23 -12 -55 and the other dated 4 -10 -55 had also been made by the Petitioner Under Order 11, Rule 12 and 14 Code of Criminal Procedure. All the three applications were rejected by the then Compensation Officer by two separate orders dated 11 -11 -55. True copies of the two orders have been filed and marked as annexure VI and VII. Applications Under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 Code of Criminal Procedure were made on 15 -12 -56 by the Petitioner to the Compensation Officer, Chunar also. These applications were also objected to on behalf of Respondent No. 2 but no affidavit claiming privilege Under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act was filed in this case also. These applications were rejected by the then Compensation Officer, Chunar by his order dated 5 -1 -56. A true copy of that order is filed and marked as annexure IX. On 6 -10 -56 the District Judge, Allahabad, passed an order directing all the cases relating to the villages of the Petitioner in tahsil Chunar and Mirzapur to be consolidated and sent for hearing to the Compensation Officer (Sub -Divisional Officer) Mirzapur, Respondent No. 1. On 2 -8 -57 the Petitioner presented two applications Under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 Code of Criminal Procedure for discovery, production and inspection of documents in possession of Respondent No. 2 and its officers "fully setting out the grounds for the same." On 31 -8 -57 an objection was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 against the above mentioned two applications inter alia on the ground that similar applications of the Petitioner having already been rejected the matter could not be reopened as also that the documents were privileged and their production should not be ordered. No affidavit claiming privilege was filed this time also. On 12 -10 -57 an application was made by counsel for Respondent No. 2 asking Respondent No. 1 first to decide whether he could reopen the question in the face of the order of his predecessors dismissing similar applications and on 12 -10 -1957 Sri R.K. Misra, the then Compensation Officer, Mirzapur, passed an order saying that he could reopen the question and fixed 26 -11 -57 for the filing of objections with regard to the discovery and inspection of documents specified in the Petitioner's application dated 22 -8 -87. After the case had been adjourned several times on 15 -1 -1958 an objection was filed by the Special counsel for Respondent No. 2 inter alia on the ground that the documents were privileged. No affidavit claiming privilege was however filed. Thereafter Sri R.K. Misra, Compensation Officer was transferred to Lucknow and was succeeded by Sri C.D. Upadhya and the latter rejected the two applications of the Petitioner dated 22 -8 -57 mentioned above by his order dated 31 -3 -58 on the ground that inasmuch as the earlier applications for the same purpose had been dismissed the matter cannot be reopened. He did not record any finding as to whether or not the documents in respect of which privilege was claimed were really privileged documents. On these facts the Petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to the Respondent No. 1 to bring up his order dated 31 -3 -1958 for being quashed. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other direction to Respondent No. 1 to hear and decide the Petitioner's application Under Order 11, Rules 12 and 14 Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with law. In addition there is the usual prayer for the issue of any other direction which may be considered to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents which has been sworn to by Sri Triloki Nath Pandey, Naib Tahsildar Zamindari Abolition, Mirzapur. The relevant allegations made in this counter affidavit are in substance, the following: No notice of objections filed by the Petitioner was issued to the State and all the objections contained only the amount of gross assets claimed by the Petitioner and not the grounds or the reasons upon which the enhanced amount of gross assets was claimed, nor did they contain any details of the errors on the record on the basis of which the compensation assessment rolls were objected to. The Naib Tahsildar never appeared on behalf of the State in any of the proceedings arising out of the objections filed by the Petitioner and even those Naib Tahsildars who were working with the Compensation Officer in connection with the preparation of the compensation statements had never been authorised by the district officer to represent the State in any of the proceedings. Under the instructions issued by the Deputy Land Reforms Commissioner m July 1953 to all the district officers in UP it was only when it was considered necessary to oppose a particular objection that the District Officer concerned could authorise the Zamindari Abolition Naib Tahsildar to represent the State in the proceedings arising out of that objection. In the present case as no notice of the Petitioner's objection was given to the State No. occasion arose for the district officer of Mirzapur to authorise the Naib Tahsildar Compensation or any other person to represent the State. The function of all the officers including the Zamindari Abolition Naib Tahsildar in the machinery set up for assessment of compensation under the Act was purely administrative and these persons could not act as recognised agents of the State for purposes of contesting objections until duly authorised by the Collector. The main ground on which the application made by the Petitioner for discovery and inspection were opposed was that the documents required by the Petitioner were not part of the judicial record and had no bearing on the merits of the case. Some of the application s of the Petitioner were also opposed on the ground that the Compensation Officer having already rejected the applications of the Petitioner for discovery and inspection of records, no fresh application for the same purpose could lie. The documents sought to be inspected related to official correspondence and the order passed by Respondent No. 1 on 31 -3 -58 was also to the same effect. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by Brahmdeo Singh, Mukhtar -i -Am of the Petitioner who had also filed the original affidavit in support of the writ petition. Mostly the allegations made in the original affidavit are in substance reiterated. The relevant additional allegations made in the rejoinder affidavit are in substance the following: Sri Triloki Nath Pandey was the Naib Tahsildar Zamindari Abolition for tahsil Mirzapur only and not for Tahsil Chunar and he was posted to Mirzapur tahsil only after the entire compensation assessment proceedings had become final and closed in that tahsil. The Naib Tahsildar Zamindari Abolition at Tahsil Chunar represented the State. The order dated 18 -12 -54 (Annexure A) would show it.
(3.) MR . G.S. Pathak, who has appeared for the Petitioner has submitted that though in the present case there is no prayer for a writ of prohibition but a prayer for the issue of a writ of certiorari only, a writ of prohibition be issued as the Respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to consider or allow the applications made by Respondent No. 2 for setting aside the orders allowing the objections filed by the Petitioner. The ground urged by the learned Counsel in support of this submission is that once the compensation assessment rolls are signed and sealed Under Section 52 of the Act they become final and cannot be varied except by way of correcting a clerical or an arithmetical error as provided by Section 61 of the Act and inasmuch as Respondent No. 2 did not file an appeal Under Section 50 of the Act against the order of the Compensation Officers, Mirzapur and Chunar tahsils, it could not after the Compensation assessment rolls had been sealed and signed get the matter reopened.;