S.K. Verma, J. - (1.) THESE are 12 connected applications in revision Under Section 102 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) IT appears that Sahu Ram Kishan formed a joint Hindu family with his sons and the family owned substantial zamindari property. The following genealogical table will be of assistance in following the facts of the case: According to the case of the Applicants a partition in the family took place in April, 1946. It appears that there was some dispute with regard to this partition and Om Prakash filed suit No. 2 of 1948 on 15 -1 -1948 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bareilly for a declaration that a partition in the family had taken place in April, 1946. This suit was decreed on 17 -3 -1948. The UP Agricultural Income Tax Act came into force some time in the year 1948 and a notice Under Section 15(3) of this Act was served upon Sahu Ram Kishan treating him as Karta of the Joint family. Sahu Ram Kishan filed a return on the basis that a partition had taken place in the family. The assessing authority rejected Sahu Ram Kishan's contention and held that the family was still joint and made an assessment on that basis. Sahu Ram Kishan filed a revision in the Board of Revenue which was also rejected. Eventually a reference was made to this Court and on 18 -2 -1957 this Court decided it in favour of Sahu Ram Kishan and his sons. The decision is reported: Sahu Ram Kishan v. The State of UP, 1957 AWR 429. this Court held that there was a partition in the family of Sahu Ram Kishan as alleged by him and that thereafter he managed the property in the capacity of a Lambardar. After this decision the agricultural income tax levied on Sahu Ram Kishan and his family was considerably reduced. The UP ZA and LR Act having come into force draft compensation as assessment rolls were prepared between January and April, 1953, and notices in respect of them were served between March and May, 1953. It is important to note that these rolls were prepared in the name of each member of the family of Sahu Kishan separately, excepting of course, the two daughters. Eventually final compensation assessment rolls were prepared Under Section 52 some time in the year 1955. Although no objections Under Section 46 of the Act had been filed against the draft compensation assessment rolls, by an oversight or on a wrong view of the law the final compensation assessment roll was prepared only in the name of Sahu Ram Kishan. On 28 -10 -1958 Sahu Ram Kishan filed an application in the Board of Revenue praying that the Rehabilitation Grants Officer be directed to expunge the name of Sahu Ram Kishan and entertain the application of each member of the family. This application was also signed by the sons of Sahu Ram Kishan as well. No orders were passed on this application. It was simply ordered to be filed. On 12 -12 -1959, Sahu Ram Kishan filed an application before the Compensation Officer praying that separate rolls be prepared for each member of the family for the payment of rehabilitation grants. As no orders on this application were passed, he made another application on 28 -12 -1959 containing the same prayer. On 11 -4 -1960 the Compensation Officer rejected the application. Appeals were filed to the District Judge who dismissed them on 30 -9 -1961, but observed that proper applications should be made for rehabilitation grants as the limitation for such applications had not expired. On 3 -11 -1961 applications were filed by Sahu Ram Kishan and his sons separately for payment of rehabilitation grants. On 11 -2 -1963, the Rehabilitation Grants Officer dismissed the applications. Appeals, which were heard by the learned Civil Judge of Pilibhit, were dismissed on 30 -9 -1964, by the order sought to be revised.
(3.) THE Rehabilitation Grants Officer rejected the applications filed by the Applicants on the ground that under the final compensation assessment roll compensation was payable, and was actually paid, to Sahu Ram Kishan alone and as under the law rehabilitation grant was payable only to the person entitled to receive compensation the sons of Sahu Ram Kishan were not entitled to receive the same. He also was of the view that the judgment of this Court had no relevancy.;