SUKHRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER versus SMT. HARBHEJI

SUKHRAM SINGH AND ANOTHER versus SMT. HARBHEJI

Section 157(1)(a) must be read to apply retrospectively, as the amendment to Section 21(h) was expressly made retrospective and both amendments were made simultaneously, indicating legislative intent for both to operate together from the commencement of the Act. The order of the Compensation Officer did not have finality—the finality attaches only to an order of the Assistant Collector under a proper reference, which did not happen in this case.

Parties
Appellant: Sukhram Singh; Appellant: Laiq Singh; Respondent: Smt. Harbheji
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 February 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated September 20, 1963 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.p. Lucknow in Revision No. 91 of 1963
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Amendment of Zamindari Abolition Act, Finality of Compensation Orders, Tenant Status Determination
Land Law Agrarian Reforms Property Retrospective Operation of Statutes Amendment of Zamindari Abolition Act Finality of Compensation Orders Tenant Status Determination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhram Singh

Appellant

Laiq Singh

Appellant

Smt. Harbheji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated September 20, 1963 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.p. Lucknow in Revision No. 91 of 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as amended operates retrospectively along with the amendment to Section 21
  2. 2 Whether the order of the Compensation Officer dated October 25, 1956 finally determined the status of the appellants as Adhivasis and barred reopening

Ratio Decidendi

Section 157(1)(a) must be read to apply retrospectively, as the amendment to Section 21(h) was expressly made retrospective and both amendments were made simultaneously, indicating legislative intent for both to operate together from the commencement of the Act. The order of the Compensation Officer did not have finality—the finality attaches only to an order of the Assistant Collector under a proper reference, which did not happen in this case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs