TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 28 of the Act for a sum of ₹ 4,29,527.50 paise. Payment was made under Section 32 of the Act to the appellant in the form of bond which was accepted. The assessment roll was revised and a fresh roll was prepared on 3.11.1979 and compensation was assessed as ₹ 46,66,014.76 paise calculated at three times of net annual income. This amount also included the earlier amount of ₹ 4,29,527.50 paid and received by the appellant in the form of bond. The appellant made a grievance to the Government regarding the compensation assessed and claimed at 15 times the net income but thereafter Additional Collector, respondent No. 4 who was the Compensation Office, asked the appellant to file an affidavit if he was ready and willing to accept compensation for mines and minerals at ten times of net annual income which was duly agreed to by the appellant on 6.8.1982. Accordingly, a fresh compensation assessment roll was prepared and additional compensation of ₹ 25,87,300 was paid to the appellant through his agent. The Member Board of Revenue-respondent No. 2 in March, 1982 took suo moto action, reopened the compensation case of the appellant and held that compens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the respondents. The first point urged on behalf of the appellant was that the Act did not empower the Member of Board of Revenue to exercise any power and, therefore, the order of the Member of Board of Revenue directing the subordinate authority to take action for recovery of the additional compensation which was paid @ ten times was illegal. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that under Bihar Practice and Procedural Manual, Member of Board of Revenue had power of Superintendence, direction and control in such matters. But in the Act, authorities and their powers have been specified and we do not find any provision which vests power on the Board of Revenue, so we have to proceed on the assumption that the Board of Revenue has no power. Therefore, the question is whether the order of the Member of Board of Revenue should be quashed on this ground. If the order is set aside, result would be that the notice directing the appellant to refund the additional amount of compensation assessed at ten times of net income would have to be quashed In other words, the earlier re-assessment of compensation made by giving ten times of net i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Act, 1974 : 24 - Rates of compensation. After the net income has been computed under Section 23, the Compensation Officer shall for the purpose of preparing the Compensation Assessment-roll proceed or determine the amount of compensation to be payable in respect of the transference to the State of the interests of each (intermediary) as follows : (1) in the case of a proprietor or tenure-holder of a permanent or resumable tenure, the compensation payable shall be determined in accordance with the following table, namely : Amount of net income Rate of compensation payable (a) where the net income so computed does not exceed ₹ 500 Twenty times such net income (1) Where the net income so computed exceeds ₹ 1,00,000 Three times such net income but in any case not less than the maximum amount under item (k) above. To the amount thus determined shall be added : (**) the amount of compensation payable to a proprietor or tenure-holder in respect of mines and minerals as determined under Section 25. 25 - Computation of compensat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oll under Section 32, correct any entry in the Compensation Assessment-roll as finally published in respect of any (intermediary) to whom such Compensation Assessment-roll re-lates or any entry in such Compensation Assessment-roll which he is satisfied has been made owning to a bona fide mistake or is necessary as a result of succession to or transfer of the interest of (an intermediary) or any other person whose name appears in such roll as a person entitled to compensation : Provided that no such correction shall be made if an appeal affecting such entry has been presented under Section 27. (2) No correction of any entry in the Compensation Assessment-roll as finally published in respect of any (intermediary) to whom such Compensation Assessment-roll relates shall be made under sub-section (1) unless the Compensation Officer has first published a draft of such correction and sent by registered post, with acknowledgment due, a copy of such draft to the (intermediary) to whom such correction relates and has finally published such correction after considering and disposing of any objections which may have been made to any such correction in the manner provided in the last four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... royalties as may appear to the Tribunal to be fair and equitable. In view of the amendment of sub-section (4) to Section 25 of the Act, Compensation Officer had to determine the amount of such compensation in accordance with the rates prescribed under section 24(1)(1). The maximum limit for such compensation as provided under Section 24(1}(1) was three times of net income. Whether the maximum limit of rate of compensation would be twenty times under Section 25(4)(b) by the Tribunal or three times of net income from royalties under Section 6 of the Amending Act of 1974 would depend on interpretation, whether the amending Act of 1974 has got retrospective effect. Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that in view of rule of interpretation as settled by this Court in catena decisions the only view that could be taken is that the amending Act would apply prospectively. The learned counsel has further urged that if it is held to be retrospective, the vested right of the appellant would be taken away which is not permissible under law. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the alternative Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel for the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature. (iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. (iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. (v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondent-State that Section 6 of the Amending Act of 1974 is retrospective. In sub-section (2) of Section 1 the legislature clearly stated that Act would come into force at once i.e., from the date of publication in the Gazette. Neither in Section 6 or any other section of the amending Act it was mentioned that the Act would have retrospective effect. If we hold that the Act would have retrospective effect it would go against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, was informed I am not to file any objection against form `G' prepared by your honour. An affidavit was also filed by the appellant stating that any excess amount paid to him would be recoverable if and when detected by Public Demand Recovery Act from the appellant. Thus it is clear that the appellant accepted the amount without any protest and, therefore, the High Court rightly held that it was an agreement between the appellant and the State as per Clause (a) of sub-section (4) of Section 25 of the Act. Under the sub-section in absence of an agreement the question of referring the dispute to Tribunal would arise. As in the present appeal there was a clear agreement between the parties the appellant forfeited his right for asking the matter to be referred under Section 25(4)(b) to Tribunal for arbitration and question of granting compensation @ more than ten time could not arise. The legislature clearly stated that payment of compensation should reach its finality. Therefore, the restriction imposed by Section 30 and 30-A for re-opening the final assessment roll does not apply. Under Section 30 of the Act the Compensation Officer was empowered to correct the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
