K.B.Asthana, C. J. - (1.) ONE Drig Vijai Bahadur Singh, a Zamindar took a loan on the foot of a promissory note executed by him in favour of Mata Badal Pandey and Krishna Murari The promissory note remained unpaid when the executant thereof applied for liquidation of his debts under the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' A Special Judge I Grade on 20-4-1937 passed a decree under Sec.14 of the said Act, which decree was eventually modified by the Chief Court at Lucknow on 14-2-1942 and a sum of Rs. 3,380 plus costs, Rs. 64 and Rs. 110/3/- as interest were found due, The decree was to carry future interest at the rate of 41% per annum upto the date of realisation. The said decree was transmitted to the Collector for execution under Section 19 of the said Act. During the pendency of the execution proceedings U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force. All the landed properties of the Zamindar respondent were acquired and he was awarded compensation and rehabilitation grant bonds. Drig Vijai Bahadur Singh died and was succeeded by his son Ran Vijai Bahadur Singh, who was substituted for his father in the execution proceedings. The compensation bonds payable to Ran Vijai Bahadur Singh were sent by the Compensation officer on 28-12-56 to the Collector under Section 23-A of the Act. There were certain secured debts also against the Zamindar respondent and they were first ordered to be paid off under Section 23-B (1) of the Act realisable from the compensation bonds on their face value. The Collector then proceeded to liquidate the unsecured debts under Section 23-B of the Act from the balance of compensation bonds. There arose some dispute as to the calculation of the interest at the decretal rate. The Collector further reduced the debt under Section 9 of the U. P. Zemindar's Debt Reduction Act of 1952 despite the objection raid by the decree-holder that the debt in question being an unsecured debt could not be reduced by the Collector. The creditors then went up in appeal before the Commissioner but it was substantially dismissed with a slight modification as regards the interests payable. The creditors then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue on the ground that the Collector had no jurisdiction to reduce the debt in question. The Board of Revenue held that the Collector had jurisdiction to reduce the debt but set aside that part of the order of the Commissioner by which interest upto the date of award was granted in terms of the decree and restored the order of the Collector for grant of interest upto 30-6-1952. The judgment of the Board of Revenue after concurrence of another member was finally delivered on 31-3-1962. A review application filed by the creditors against the judgment of the Board of Revenue was also dismissed on 23-10-1962. The creditors Mata Badal Pandey and Krishna Murari then filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the order of the Board of Revenue and all the proceedings leading to the revision before the Board of Revenue. Ran Vijai Bahadur Singh was impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition, the Board of Revenue, the Additional Commissioner and the Collector, being respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The writ petition was contested by Ran Vijai Bahadur Singh. The main question which arose in the writ petition revolved round the controversy whether Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act applied and the Collector in liquidating the unsecured debts under the Encumbered Estates Act had jurisdiction to reduce such debts. A subsidiary question of award of interest was also raised. The learned Single Judge by his Judgment dated 27-10-65 dismissed the writ petition holding that Section 9 of the Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act was applicable to the execution of a decree for unsecured debts under Chapter V of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act when realised against compensation and rehabilitation grant bonds. The learned judge also upheld the view that interest could be calculated upto 1952 determined by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner-creditors being aggrieved then filed a Special Appeal from the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Division Bench felt that the matter was not free from difficulty and referred the following two questions to a Full Bench:- "1. Whether benefit of Section 9 of the U. P. Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act, 1952 should be available to a judgment-debtor in the proceedings under Chapter V of the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act?
(2.) WILL it make any difference if the bonds are suo motu sent by the Compensation Officer to the Collector instead of being requisitioned by the Collector?" 2. No question was referred by the Division Bench as regards the award of interest. This is how the matter has come before the Full Bench. When the case was heard by the Full Bench, a controversy arose as to whether the English translation of U. P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act will prevail over the Hindi text of the Act. An argument was made on behalf of the creditor-appellants that under Section 9 of the Zamindars Debt Reduction Act only when decree is executed by attachment and sale, the decretal amount is to be reduced. Hindi text of the said Act was pressed into service by the other side to show that while provisions of Section 9 of the Act in English contemplates both attachment and sale of the bonds, the Hindi text warrants that it can be either and since the compensation bonds which were the substitute of the Zamindari property, were attached in execution of the decree, the debt could be reduced. On the basis of five Judges decision in Smt. Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj jehwa, 1974 All WR 163 : (AIR 1974 All 106) (FB) it was argued that the authorised text in English language will prevail over the original Hindi text of the Act and this Court administering the law ought to resolve the controversy on the basis of the English text by applying the general principles of interpretation of English Statutes and by finding the meaning thereof from English dictionaries. The other side relied upon a Division Bench decision in the case of Haji Lal Mohammad Biri Works, Allahabad v. Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad (AIR 1959, All 208) in which a view was taken that any apparent ambiguity in the English translation of an Act enacted in Hindi can be resolved by making use of the Hindi text of the Act and this view of the High Court was approved expressly by the Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U. P. (AIR 1961 SC 1534). We found that in the case of Smt. Ram Rati v. Gram Samaj (supra) neither of the said decisions has been noticed. The five judges Full Bench seems to have been much influenced by earlier decision of three Judges Full Bench in J. S. Mills Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, I-T. (III), U. P., Allahabad (AIR 1962 All 240) (FB) wherein it was held that in case of diversion of two versions, that is in Hindi and English, the English version would prevail and would be supreme. In this State of law, the Full Bench referred the following question of law to a larger Bench of seven Judges:- "Whether it will be a sound rule of interpretation or construction of statutes that if there appears to be some doubt or ambiguity in the authorised text in English language of an Act enacted in Hindi by the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh, then for resolving the ambiguity or doubt and for ascertaining the correct meaning thereof, reference can be made to the corresponding Hindi text and reliance placed thereon?" The seven judges Full Bench by majority answered the above question in the following manner:- "We are, therefore, of opinion that where there is some doubt or ambiguity in any provision in the authoritative English text, it is permissible to look into the Hindi text to remove the doubt or ambiguity."
(3.) WITH the above answer of the larger Full Bench the parties addressed before us their arguments. For the sake of convenience, we, hereinafter, describe the U. P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934, as 'the 1934 Act' and the U. P. Zamindars' Debt Reduction Act, 1952, as 'the 1952 Act'. On behalf of the creditor-appellants their learned counsel submitted that the debts secured against the proprietary rights in Zamindari properties are to be liquidated under Section 23-B (1) of the 1934 Act to which specifically the benefit of Section 8 of the 1952 Act has been extended but the benefit of Sec.9 of 1952 Act, which in its terms applies to unsecured debts has not been expressly extended to liquidation of debt under sub-section (2) of Section 23-B of 1934 Act dealing with liquidation of unsecured debts, hence the Collector will have no power to reduce the amount decreed in respect of an unsecured debt. It was strenuously urged that a comparison of the two sub-sections of Section 23-B of 1934 Act make it abundantly clear that the Legislature has consciously denied the benefit of the 1952 Act in respect of unsecured debts while extending its benefit to secured debts. The submission was that the reason underlying this distinction is that the debts secured on proprietary rights in Zamindari property can only be liquidated by sale of proprietary rights in Zamindari properties, hence the benefit of Section 8 of the 1952 Act was extended purposely for reducing the burden on the Zamindar but an unsecured debt would not entail any such burden on the Zamindar so as to deserve reduction. Our attention was drawn to the definition of secured debt under the 1952 Act, which means a debt secured against Zamindari property, i. e., the proprietary interest or against Zamindari property along with other immovable property. It was suggested that as a consequence of the abolition of Zamindari and vesting thereof in the State the security available to a secured creditor against which he could enforce his security was no longer available and its value in compensation bonds stood reduced, hence it would have been highly inequitable if there was no corresponding reduction in the Zamindar's liability in respect of the property which formed security for the debt. Therefore, the amendment of 1934 Act was made for giving relief to the Zamindars to meet the disadvantage and inequity directly flowing from the abolition of Zamindari.;