{"id":217741,"date":"1962-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962"},"modified":"2016-07-23T10:50:15","modified_gmt":"2016-07-23T05:20:15","slug":"the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962","title":{"rendered":"The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1694, \t\t 1963 SCR (1)\t 98<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE COLLECTOR OF MONGHYR AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKESHAV PRASAD GOENKA AND OTHERS(And connected appeals)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/03\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSUBBARAO, K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1694\t\t  1963 SCR  (1)\t 98\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1974 SC  87\t (28)\n\n\nACT:\nPrivate\t  Irrigation   Works-Repairs  to   works-Notice\t  to\nlandlord-Collector's power to direct repairs Without notice-\nStatute\t requiring  reasons to be recorded  by\tCollector-If\nmandatory-Demand  on landlord for share of  costs-Legality-\nBihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922(Bihar and Orissa  5\nof 1922),ss.   3,  4,  5,  5A, 5B,  11,\t 12-Constitution  of\nIndia, Art. 226.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe Bihar Private Irrigation Works Act, 1922, was enacted to\nprovide, inter alia, for the repairs and improvements\n\t\t\t     99\nof certain irrigation works.  Under ss.3 to 5 of the Act the\nCollector  was\tempowered  to  take  action,  where  he\t was\nsatisfied  that the matter was of sufficient importance\t for\nthe  repairs  etc. of the existing  irrigation\tworks  after\ncausing a notice to be served on the landlord of the land in\nwhich the irrigation work was situated and after making\t the\nnecessary enquiries.  Section 5A provided : \"Notwithstanding\nanything to the contrary contained in this Act, whenever the\nCollector, for reasons to be recorded by him, is of  opinion\nthat the delay in the repair of any existing work which\t may\nbe occasioned by proceedings commenced by a notice under  s.\n3  adversely affects or is likely to affect adversely  lands\nwhich are dependent on such irrigation work for a supply  of\nwater, he may forthwith cause the repair of such  irrigation\nwork to be begun......\nIn pursuance of a circular issued by the Government of Bihar\nto  the\t District Officers, the officials  of  the  revenue\ndepartment   submitted\t reports  pointing  out\t  that\t the\nirrigation  works  specified by them  needed  repairs.\t The\nCollector  of  Monghyr, on receipt of the report  passed  an\norder under s. 5A of the Act on the terms as recited in that\nsection, but he did not record the reasons why he considered\nthat the delay in issuing the notice under s. 3 would  bring\nabout  the consequences which were recited in s. 5A.   After\nthe  work was completed, there was an apportionment  of\t the\ntotal cost and a demand was made on the landlord under s. 11\nof the Act for his share of the contribution.  The  landlord\nchallenged   the  legality  of\tthe  demand  by\t filing\t  an\napplication before the High Court of Patna under Art. 226 of\nthe  Constitution of India on the grounds, inter alia,\tthat\nit was an essential requirement of s. 5A that the  Collector\nshould\trecord\this reasons for departing  from\t the  normal\nprocedure of an order based on an enquiry under ss. 3 to  5,\nand  that  the failure to do so rendered  the  action  taken\nunder  s.  5A  void, so as to  render  invalid\tall  further\nproceedings for the recovery of the landlord's share of\t the\napportioned cost.\nHeld,  that  in\t the context in which  the  words  \"for\t the\nreasons\t to be recorded by him\" occur in s. 5A of the  Bihar\nPrivate\t Irrigation  Works Act, 1922,  and  considering\t the\nscheme of the Act, the requirement of these words was manda-\ntory ; that as in the present case, the requirement was\t not\ncomplied  with, the order of the Collector under s.  5A\t was\nnull and void.\nState  of Uttar Pradesh v. Manbodhan Lal  Srivaslava<\/a>  [1958]\nS.C.R. 533, considered.\n100\nHeld,  further,\t that even assuming that the  order  of\t the\nCollector under s. 5A was administrative in its nature,\t the\nlandlord  was  entitled\t to relief under  Art.\t226  of\t the\nConstitution  because the demand which was made against\t him\nunder\t   s.  II  of the Act and  which  was  sought  to be\nrecovered  as  arrears of public demands under\ts.  12,\t was\nbased  on  the order under s. 5A found to have\tbeen  passed\nwithout jurisdiction.\nHeld,  also,  that s. 5B of the Act was applicable  only  to\ncases  of compensation for loss sustained by  third  parties\nand not where a liability arose under ss.  11 and 12.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL\t  APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.    53 to
\n81, 133 to 137 253 to 263 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t  by  special  leave from the judgments\t and  orders
\ndated  March  28, 1957, April 20, 1956, July  12,  1960\t and
\nMarch  14, 1956, of the Patna High Court in Misc.   Judicial
\nCases Nos. 531, 535, 539, 541, 543, 548 to 552, 554 to\t557,
\n559, 560, 562 to 572 and 574 of 1956 and 141, 142, 256,\t 271
\nto 273 and 349 to 358 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
L.   K. Jha, Bhagawat Prasad, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg, S. C.
\nAgarwala and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the appellants in C.\t As.
\nNos. 53 to 81 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
 J.  C.\t Sinha,\t K.  K. Sinha and  R.  R.  Biswas,  for\t the
\nrespondents Nos. 1, 3 to 6 and 8 to 11 in C. As.  Nos. 53 to
\n56 of 1960, and the respondents in C. As.  Nos. 77 to 81  of
\n1960.\n<\/p>\n
L.   K.\t Jha and R. C. Prasad, for the appellants in C.\t As.
\nNos. 133 to 137 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
J.   C. Sinha and R. R. Biswas, for the respondents in C.
\nAs.  Nos. 133 to 137 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
T.   P. Sinha and S. P. Varma, for the appellants in C.\t As.
\nNos. 253 to 263 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, Ugra Singh and D. Goburdhan,\t for
\nthe respondents in C. As.  Nos. 253 to\t263 of 1960.
\n1962.\tMarch, 28.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\n101<\/span>
\nAYYANGAR, J.-These three batches of appeals are before us by
\nvirtue\tof  special  leave and\thave  been,  heard  together
\nbecause of the common point raised in them which relates  to
\nthe  proper  construction  of s. 5A  of\t the  Bihar  Private
\nIrrigation  Works  Act,\t 1922 (Bihar and Orissa\t Act,  5  of
\n1922), which will be hereafter referred to as the Act.\t The
\nState  of  Bihar  which is the appellant  in  these  appeals
\nquestions the correctness of the orders of the High Court by
\nwhich  a  number  of  writ  petitions  filed  by   landlords
\nchallenging the legality of demands for contribution made on
\nthem  under s. 11 of the Act were allowed by the High  Court
\nof Patna.\n<\/p>\n
For the purposes of the ‘decision of these appeals it is not
\nnecessary  to state the detailed facts of any of  the  cases
\nbut it is sufficient if a reference were made to any One  of
\nthe  orders  passed under s. 5 A of the Act  which  was\t the
\nbasis of the demand for contribution which was\tsuccessfully
\nimpugned, since it is common ground that every one of  these
\norders\tconcerned in the several appeals was subject to\t one
\ninfirmity  to  which we shall presently refer  and  that  is
\nsufficient to dispose of these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tsetting out in brief outline the facts which led  to
\nthe  present proceedings it would be convenient to refer  to
\nthe relevant provisions of the Act.  The preamble to the Act
\nreads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whereas\tit is. expedient to provide for\t the
\n\t      construction  repair, extension or  alteration
\n\t      of  certain kinds of irrigation works  and  to
\n\t      secure  their maintenance and to regulate\t the
\n\t      supply  or distribution of water by  means  of
\n\t      such  works  and to  facilitate  and  regulate
\n\t      their construction, extension and alteration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  repairs and improvement of Irrigation Works  are  dealt
\nwith  in  Ch.\tII whose provisions  are  material  for\t the
\ncontroversy before us.\tSection 3 with
\n102<\/span>
\nwhich  this Chapter opens enacts, to quote the\tof  material
\nwords :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whenever it appears to the Collector\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that   the\t repair\t  of   an   existing
\n\t      irrigation  work is necessary for the  benefit
\n\t      of  any  village\tor  local  area\t within\t the
\n\t      district\tand that the failure to repair\tsuch
\n\t      irrigation  work\tadversely  affects,  or\t  is
\n\t      likely  to affect adversely, the\tlands  which
\n\t      are  dependent thereon for a supply of  water,
\n\t      or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   that it is desirable for the purpose  of
\n\t      settling\tor averting disputes. or  preventing
\n\t      waste  of\t water\tor injury  to  land  by\t the
\n\t      wrongful\tor  undue diversion of a  stream  or
\n\t      channel that any sluice, weir, outlet, escape,
\n\t      head work,  dam  or  other  work\tshould\tbe
\n\t      constructed  in any irrigation work, in  order
\n\t      to  regulate  the supply\tor  distribution  of
\n\t      water for agricultural purposes,
\n\t      he  may,\tif satisfied that the matter  is  of
\n\t      sufficient    importance\t to   justify\t his
\n\t      intervention,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   cause in the prescribed manner a  notice
\n\t      to  be served on the landlord of the  land  in
\n\t      which  the  irrigation work  is  situated\t and
\n\t      public notice to be given at convenient places
\n\t      in every village in which the irrigation\twork
\n\t      is  situated stating that he intends  to\ttake
\n\t      action  under this Chapter for the  repair  of
\n\t      the said work or for extending or altering  it
\n\t      in any of the ways specified in clause (b) and
\n\t      specifying  the.\tdate on\t which\tthe  inquiry
\n\t      under section 4 will be held, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  serve a notice in the prescribed  manner
\n\t      on every person known or believed to be  under
\n\t      an obligation to maintain
\n\t       103<\/span>
\n\t      the  irrigation  work in an  efficient  state,
\n\t      calling  on  him\tto show cause  on  the\tdate
\n\t      specified\t in the notice why he should not  be
\n\t      required\tto repair the said work or alter  it
\n\t      as aforesaid;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Section 4  makes provision for an inquiry and
\n\t      it reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “14.  On the date stated in the notices issued
\n\t      under section 3, or on any other date to which
\n\t      the   proceedings\t  may  be   adjourned,\t the
\n\t      Collector shall hold an inquiry and shall hear
\n\t      the  persons  on whom the\t notices  have\tbeen
\n\t      served  if they appear) and any other  persons
\n\t      affected or likely to be affected by the order
\n\t      who  may attend; and may take down in  writing
\n\t      any evidence that he may think fit regarding-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a) the necessity for repairing, extending or
\n\t      altering the said irrigation work,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t nature\t of the works  required\t for
\n\t      such repair, extension or alteration,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the\t   obligation\tto   maintain\t the
\n\t      irrigation work in an efficient state and\t the
\n\t      reasons  why the person under such  obligation
\n\t      has failed to repair it, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   the\t probable cost of the proposed\twork
\n\t      of repair, extension or alteration.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 5 which follows sets out the powers of the Collector
\nand it reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5.  (1)\tIf, after making  an  inquiry  under
\n\t      section 4, the Collector is satisfied that the
\n\t      state of disrepair of the irrigation work
\n\t      104<\/span>
\n\t      is such as materially affects or is likely  to
\n\t      affect materially the irrigation of the  lands
\n\t      which  are dependent thereon for a  supply  of
\n\t      water, or that any extension or alteration  of
\n\t      such irrigation work is necessary for the pur-
\n\t      poses specified in clause (b) of section 3, he
\n\t      shall issue an order in writing requiring that
\n\t      the  proposed  work of  repair,  extension  or
\n\t      alteration shall be carried out-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   by\tone or more of the persons  on\twhom
\n\t      notices  under clause (ii) of section  3\thave
\n\t      been  served and who agrees or agree to  carry
\n\t      out the said work, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   by any such agency as he thinks  proper,
\n\t      if,  for\treasons to be recorded\tby  him,  he
\n\t      considers that there are adequate reasons\t why
\n\t      any person mentioned in clause (a) should\t not
\n\t      be entrusted with the carrying out of the said
\n\t      work;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat the Collector shall, if  he  is
\n\t      satisfied\t that the cost of carrying  out\t the
\n\t      proposed work of repair, extension or  altera-
\n\t      tion  will  be  prohibitive,  pass  an   order
\n\t      declaring that such work shall not be  carried
\n\t      out :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Every order made under sub-section
\n\t      (1)   shall specify, as closely as may be pra-
\n\t      cticable,\t the nature of the work to  be\tdone
\n\t      the  estimated  cost of executing it  and\t the
\n\t      manner  in which and the time within which  it
\n\t      shall be executed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
At  this stage reference may be made to the terms of  s.  47
\nunder which any person aggrieved by an order of a  Collector
\nunder  s. 5 has, within three months from the date on  which
\nthe  first over act is taken in pursuance of such  order,  a
\nlimited right of suit in a civil court,
\n\t\t\t    105<\/span>
\nSection 5A, whose construction is involved in these  appeals
\nwas  introduced by an amendment effected by Bihar Act  X  of
\n1939 and it is necessary to set it out in full :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5  A.  (1) Notwithstanding  anything  to\t the
\n\t      contrary\tcontained in this Act, whenever\t the
\n\t      Collector, for reasons to be recorded by\thim,
\n\t      is of opinion that the delay in the repair  of
\n\t      any  existing  irrigation work  which  may  be
\n\t      occasioned  by  proceedings  commenced  by   a
\n\t      notice under section 3 adversely affects or is
\n\t      likely  to  affect adversely lands  which\t are
\n\t      dependent on such irrigation work for a supply
\n\t      of  water,’ he may forthwith cause the  repair
\n\t      of such irrigation work to be begun by any one
\n\t      or  more\tof the persons mentioned  in  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  of\tsection 3 or by such  agency  as  he
\n\t      thinks proper:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided that the Collector shall cause public
\n\t      notice  to  be given at convenient  places  in
\n\t      every village in which the irrigation work  is
\n\t      situated\tstating\t that  the  work   mentioned
\n\t      therein has already been begun.
\n\t      (2)   When  any such work has been  completed,
\n\t      the  Collector shall cause notice to be  given
\n\t      in the manner aforesaid stating that the\twork
\n\t      mentioned therein has been completed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As  some  reference  was made by learned  Counsel.  for\t the
\nappellant  to the provisions of s. 5B, we might extract\t the
\nrelevant portion of it:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5B. (1) Any person who has sustained any loss
\n\t      by  anything done by the Collector or  by\t any
\n\t      person   acting  under  the  orders   of\t the
\n\t      Collector under sub-section (1) of section 5 A
\n\t      may  make\t an application\t to  the  prescribed
\n\t      authority\t for compensation for such loss\t and
\n\t      for an order directing the restoration of\t the
\n\t      land  or\tthe irrigation work  to\t its  former
\n\t      condition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      106<\/span><\/p>\n
Section\t 7 makes provision for the recovery of the  cost  of
\nthe work by persons who effected them under s. 5 (1) (a)  or
\nunder s. 5A by application to the Collector.  When the\tcost
\nhas been ascertained under s. 7 s. 8 empowers the  Collector
\nto apportion the cost between persons “having regard to\t the
\nobligations under which they were to maintain the irrigation
\nwork in an efficient state, the reason for their failure  so
\nto  maintain it, the benefit which is likely to result\tfrom
\nthe   work   of\t repair\t or  construction  and\t any   other
\nconsiderations which in the circumstances of the case he may
\ndeem it fair and equitable to take into account”.  And after
\nsuch  apportionment  is made the Collector is  empowered  to
\nmake  an award specifying the person or persons by whom\t the
\nsum  so apportioned is payble.\tThe other provisions of\t the
\nAct  enable  demands  to be issued on the  persons  who\t are
\nliable to make the payment and for the recovery of the\tcase
\nsums as a public demand payable to the Collector.
\nThe  facts  giving rise to these petitions were\t briefly  as
\nfollows: On 19th April, 1948 the Government of Bihar  issued
\na  circular  letter signed by the  Additional  Secretary  to
\nGovernment  to\tthe District Officers of  various  districts
\nincluding  Monghyr from which these appeals arise.  In\tthis
\ncommunication the Additional Secretary stated.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “I  am  directed to say that  Government\thave
\n\t      decided  that  in addition to  the  irrigation
\n\t      work  under the Grow More Food Scheme  of\t the
\n\t      Development,  each  of  the  District  Officer
\n\t      mentioned\t above\tshould take up\tand  execute
\n\t      before the rains one hundred Minor  Irrigation
\n\t      works in his district under section 5, 5A, 32A
\n\t      and 32B of the Private Irrigation Works Act on
\n\t      an  approximate average cost  of\tRs.2,000\/for
\n\t      each work ……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       107<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)   To\tfinance\t these\tschemes\t under\t the
\n\t      Revenue  department a sum Rs. 1,00,000\/to\t the
\n\t      district of Monghyr (is allowed)
\n\t      (3)   Government\thave decided that the  minor
\n\t      irrigation work should continue to be executed
\n\t      both  under the Development  department  (Grow
\n\t      More Food section) and the Revenue  Department
\n\t      but  the\tCollector of  the  district  village
\n\t      responsible  for the entire  minor  irrigation
\n\t      works  under  both  the  categories  Even\t the
\n\t      schemes  to  be  executed\t under\tthe  Revenue
\n\t      department should be treated as Grow More Food
\n\t      scheme,  but all use of the provision  of\t the
\n\t      Private Irrigation works should be made in all
\n\t      cases  in order to ensure that quick  work  on
\n\t      the  initiative of the Collector is  done\t and
\n\t      cost  recovered  later on after-the  work\t has
\n\t      been completed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)   In deciding upon the scheme to be  taken
\n\t      up under the Revenue Department, the  District
\n\t      Officers are requested to consider those\tsent
\n\t      by    the\t  Presidents,\tDistrict    Congress
\n\t      Committee, for which special request was\tmade
\n\t      to them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5)   The\t cost will in the first instance  be
\n\t      met by Government but 50% of the same will  be
\n\t      realised from the persons benefited
\n\t      (6)   In every village selected for one of the
\n\t      following\t items\tof work,  namely  (1)  cons-
\n\t      truction\tof  Ahar or bundh  (2  clearance  of
\n\t      pynes  and  khanra and (3)  re-examination  if
\n\t      silted up pynes and khantas, on which  Govern-
\n\t      ment  desire you to concentrate this  year,  a
\n\t      small  panchayat\toffice public  spirited\t and
\n\t      reliable persons should be formed with a head-
\n\t      man
\n\t      (7)   You\t are therefore requested to  contact
\n\t      immediately the District Supervisor
\n\t      108<\/span>
\n\t      and the President, District Congress Committee
\n\t      of your district.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (9)   Government\thave authorised\t expenditure
\n\t      to be incurred in anticipation of provision of
\n\t      funds.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Some time after this circular, and as stated by the State in
\nthe  counter-affidavit\tfiled by it in answer  to  the\twrit
\npetitions  under  Art. 226 from the orders  on\twhich  Civil
\nAppeals 53-81 of 1960 arise, in pursuance of this  circular,
\nthe officials of the Revenue Department submitted reports to
\nSub-Divisional Officers who were vested with the powers of a
\nCollector under s. 5A pointing out that the irrigation works
\nspecified by them needed repairs and thereafter orders\twere
\npassed by the Collector in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “whereas\tit appears to me that the repair  of
\n\t      an  existing  irrigation\twork,\tviz………
\n\t      situated\tin  ‘village\tThana……………
\n\t      District Monghyr is necessary for the  benefit
\n\t      of  the aforesaid village and the\t failure  of
\n\t      repair  of  such\tirrigation  work   adversely
\n\t      affects and is likely to affect adversely\t the
\n\t      lands  which are dependent thereon for  supply
\n\t      of water, and
\n\t      Whereas I am satisfied that my intervention is
\n\t      necessary because, in my opinion, delay in the
\n\t      repair  of the existing irrigation work  which
\n\t      may be occasioned by the proceedings commenced
\n\t      by a notice under s.3 adversely affects or  is
\n\t      likely  to  affect adversely  the\t land  which
\n\t      depends on such irrigation work for supply  of
\n\t      water it is deemed expedient to proceed  under
\n\t      section  5A  of  the BPIW\t Act.\tI  therefore
\n\t      hereby  order that the said work be  forthwith
\n\t      put to execution under section 5A of the\tsaid
\n\t      Act.  A public notice under section 5A (1)  be
\n\t      given at a convenient place
\n\t\t\t\t   109<\/span>
\n\t      at  the aforesaid village that the  work\tmen-
\n\t      tioned therein has already begun.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  public notice that the work has already been  commenced
\ns. 5A(1) was issued and the work was completed.\t  Thereafter
\nthere  was an apportionment of the total cost and   in\tline
\nwith  the  circular  of Government  which  we  have  recited
\nearlier,  the  landlord’s  share  of  the  contribution\t was
\ndetermined  as\t500 % of the total cost of the\twork.\tWhen
\nthese  sums  were sought to be demanded from  the  landlords
\n(from  whom  it might be ,stated that by the  date  of\tthis
\ndemand their estates had been taken over by Government under
\nthe provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1950)
\nthey came forward to question the legality of the demand.
\nPausing here, it is ‘necessary to mention a few matters: The
\nfirst  is  that\t the orders  passed  by\t the  Sub-Divisional
\nOfficers in each of these several cases was on a cyclostyled
\nform  in  which only the name of the work and  its  location
\nwith  reference to the village, Thana, district etc. had  to
\nbe  filled  up.\t In some of the cases even the name  of\t the
\nwork  which was left blank in the cyclostyled form. was\t not
\nfilled in by the Collector before he signed this order.\t Mr.
\nVarma  learned Counsel who appeared for the  appellant-State
\nin  Civil Appeals 53-81 of 1960 in which some of the  orders
\nsuffered  from this infirmity, suggested that  these  orders
\nmight stand on a different footing.  But in the view we\t are
\ntaking\tof the requirements of s. 5A it is not necessary  to
\nseparate  these\t cases.\t  Secondly, in none  of\t the  orders
\npassed\tunder  s. 5A whose legality has been  challenged  in
\nthese  several\tappeals,  has  the  Collector  recorded\t the
\nreasons\t why  he considered that the delay  in\tissuing\t the
\nnotice\tunder s. 3 would bring about the consequences  which
\nare recited in s.   5A(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Though, as stated earlier, it was the case of State, in\t the
\nHigh  Court at least in the petitions which have given\trise
\nto Civil Appeals 53-81 of
\n110<\/span>
\n1960,  that  the  orders of the Collectors  were  passed  in
\npursuance  of  Government’s  policy  as\t disclosed  in\t the
\ncircular dated April 19, 1948, we shall, for the purposes of
\ndealing\t  with\tthe  points  urged  before  us,\t omit\tfrom
\nconsideration this feature and proceed on the basis that the
\nCollector  had passed these orders suo moto in\texercise  of
\ntheir own discretion without having been induced to do so by
\nan  external authority.\t It will be noticed from the  sample
\norder of the Collector we have extracted earlier, that\teven
\nwhere  the form was properly filled up, it does not  recite
\nthe  reason  why  the  Collector  considered  the  procedure
\nrequiring  a  notice to the affected party  followed  by  an
\nenquiry outlined by ss. 3 to 5 could not be adopted.
\nThe learned Judges of the High Court have decided in  favour
\nof the respondents on two grounds; (1) that having regard to
\nthe  order  it\twas apparent that  the\tCollectors  bad\t not
\napplied\t their\tminds  to  the\tquestion  before  them,\t the
\nrecitals  therein being merely a mechanical reproduction  of
\nthe  terms  of,%.  5A, and ( 2) that  it  was  an  essential
\nrequirement  of s: 5A that the Collector should\t record\t his
\nreasons\t for  departing from the normal procedure  of  order
\nbased  on an enquiry under ss. 3 to 5 and the failure to  do
\nso  rendered  the action taken under s. 5A void,  so  as  to
\nrender, invalid all further proceedings for the recovery  of
\nthe  landlords’\t share\tof the\tapportioned  cost  from\t the
\nrespondents.   As  we are clearly of the  opinion  that\t the
\nlearned Judges of the High Court were\tright\t in    their
\nsecond ground it is unnecessary to consider the first’ viz.,
\nwhether the learned Judges    were right in holding that the
\nfirst ground was made out in the present case or not.
\nWe shall first proceed to consider the place of s. 5A in the
\nscheme of the Act, Section 3(a) deals with the same type  of
\noases,\tas that dealt’ with by s. 5A,viz., that the  repairs
\nof an existing irrigation work is necessary for the  benefit
\nof a village and
\n\t\t\t    111<\/span>
\nthat  the failure to repair such irrigation  work  adversely
\naffects or is likely to affect adversely the lands which are
\ndependent  thereon for the supply of water words which\tare
\nrepeated in the latter Provision. if action was taken  under
\ns.  3  then notices would have to be issued in\tthe  present
\ncase to the landlords for it is on the basis that they\twere
\nunder  an  obligation to ‘effect the repair  that  they\t are
\nsought\tto be made liable for the cost of the repairs  [vide
\ns. 3(b)(ii)].  The landlords would then have an\t opportunity
\nof  disputing: (1) their obligation to make the repair,\t (2)
\nwhether\t the repair suggested is necessary or not,  and\t (3)
\nwhether\t to  achieve  the same result any  other  manner  of
\nrepair which might cost less might not suffice, and it would
\nbe  after considering the objections made and  the  evidence
\nled on these points that the Collector would have to  decide
\nunder the terms of s. 5 whether the repair should be carried
\nout  and if so, what repairs and in what manner.   When\t the
\nCollector proceeds under ss. 3 to 5 he will undoubtedly be a
\nquasi-judicial\t authority   and  would\t  have\t to   decide
\nobjectively on the basis of the materials placed before him.
\nThe notice, determination and enquiry contemplated by ss.  3
\nto  5 would normally take some little time before the  work,
\nit  decided  upon,  could  be  put  into  execution  and  be
\neffected.    Emergencies  might\t arise\tsuch  as  a   sudden
\ninundation, unexpected rains etc. by reason of which repairs
\nhave  to be undertaken immediately in order to avoid  danger
\nto  an irrigation work which would not brook any delay.\t  It
\nis obvious that it is to provide for such a contingency that
\ns.5A was introduced.  It dispenses with notice of an enquiry
\nand  an enquiry which might follow the notice and denies  to
\nthe  landholder\t or other person who is\t ultimately  charged
\nwith  the  liability  to meet the cost of  the\trepair\tthe’
\nopportunity  of pointing out to the Collector that there  is
\nno need for the repair or that the repair could be  effected
\nat less cost.\n<\/p>\n
112<\/span><\/p>\n
That  the power under the section can be invoked only in  an
\nemergency  is  not disputed before us but what\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for the appellant submitted was that s. 5A vested in
\nthe  Collector\tan administrative jurisdiction and  that  it
\ncontemplated   action\tbeing\ttaken\ton   his   objective
\nsatisfaction  that an emergency exists.\t It  is\t unnecessary
\nfor the purposes of the present that appeals to consider the
\nquestion whether the satisfaction of the Collector under  a.
\n5A  indicated by the words “whenever the  Collector………
\nis of opinion” is purely a subjective satisfaction or posits
\nalso that he should reach that satisfaction only on relevant
\nmaterial  and that it would be open to a party\taffected  by
\nthe  order  to\tchallenge  the\tvalidity  of  the  order  by
\nestablishing  the absence of any relevant material for\tsuch
\nas satisfaction.  We shall assume that (a) The Collector  is
\nexercising  merely  an administrative jurisdiction  and\t not
\nfunctioning  as, a quasi-judicial authority, (b)  that\twhat
\nmatters and what confers on him jurisdiction to act under s.
\n5A  is\this subjective satisfaction that the  delay  in\t the
\nrepair\t of  an\t existing  irrigation  work  which  may\t  be
\noccasioned by a proceedings commenced by notice under s.  3,
\nleads  or is likely to lead to ‘the consequences set out  in
\nthe  latter’ part of sub-s. (1) of s. 5A. If these had\tbeen
\nthe  only  statutory  requirements,  learned  Counsel  would
\ncertainly be on firmer ground, but the statute does not stop
\nwith  this but proceeds to add a direction to the  Collector
\nthat the reasons for his opinion should be recorded by\thim.
\nThere  is no doubt that on the texture of the provision\t the
\nrecording of the reasons is a condition for the emergency of
\nthe power to make the order under sub-s. (1)
\nThe  question,\thowever,  debated before  us  was  that\t the
\ncondition or the requirement was not mandatory what was only
\ndirectory  with the result that the failure on the  part  of
\nthe Collector to record his reasons was at the
\n\t\t\t    113<\/span>
\nworst an irregularity which would not affect the legality of
\nthe order.  In this connection learned Counsel placed strong
\nreliance  on  the judgment of this Court in State  of  Uttar
\nPradesh\t v. ManboclhanLal Srivastava (1) where it held\tthat
\nArt.  320(3)(c)\t of the Constitution was not  mandatory\t and
\nthat the absence of consultation or any irregularity in con-
\nsultation  did\tnot afford a public servant whose  case\t was
\nomitted\t to be referred to the Public Service  Commission  a
\ncause of action in a court of law.  Learned Counsel  pointed
\nout  that  even\t though the language used  in  Art.  20\t (3)
\nappeared  imperative  in that it enacted  “that\t the  Public
\nService\t Commission  shall be consulted,” those\t words\twere
\nheld  not to be mandatory.  The present case was,  according
\nto him, a fortiori, because the imperative word “shall”\t had
\nnot been used.\tHe also referred us to other decisions\twere
\nthe  requirements of the law had been held to be  directory,
\nbut to these it is not necessary to refer, for it ultimately
\ndepends\t on the construction of each enactment and  none  of
\nthe decisions relied on were really in pari materia with the
\ncase now before us.\n<\/p>\n
We  feel unable to accept the submission of learned  Counsel
\nthat in the context in which the words’ “for the reasons  to
\nbe  recorded  by  him” occur in s. 5A  and  considering\t the
\nscheme of Ch.  II of the Act, the requirement of these words
\ncould  be  held\t to  be otherwise  than\t mandatory.   It  is
\nneedless to add that the employment of the auxiliary verb  ”
\nshall” is inconclusive and similarly the mere absence of the
\nimperative  is not conclusive either.  The question  whether
\nany requirement is mandatory or directory has to be  decided
\nnot merely on the basis of any specific provision which, for
\ninstance,  sets\t out  the consequence  of  the\tomission  to
\nobserve\t the, requirement, but on the purpose for which\t the
\nrequirement has been enacted, particularly in the context of
\nthe
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 533.\n<\/p>\n
114<\/span><\/p>\n
other provisions of the Act and the general scheme  thereof.
\nIt  would, inter alia, depend on whether the requirement  is
\ninsisted  on  as a protection for the  safeguarding  of\t the
\nright  of liberty of person or of property which the  action
\nmight involve.\n<\/p>\n
Let  us\t now  examine the provision with  reference  to\t the
\nseveral relevant matters we have just set out.\tFirstly,  on
\nthe  main  scheme  of the Act and what one  might  term\t the
\nnormal\tprocedure,  is that indicated by ss. 3\tto  5  where
\nthere  is ample opportunity afforded to persons affected  to
\nput  forward  their  objections and prove  them\t before\t any
\npecuniary  liability  is  fastened upon\t them.\t Section  5A
\nconstitutes  a\tdeparture from this norm.  It  is  obviously
\ndesigned  to  make  provision for cases where  owing  to  an
\nemergency it is not possible to comply with the requirements
\nof  ss.\t 3  to 5 of affording  an  opportunity\tto  affected
\npersons\t to make out a case that there is  no  justification
\nfor   burdening\t them  with  any  pecuniary  obligation\t  or
\npecuniary  obligation beyond a particular extent.  It is  in
\nthe  context  of this consideration that the  Court  has  to
\nconsider  whether  the requirement that\t reasons  should  be
\nrecorded by the Collector is mandatory or not.\tIf the ques-
\ntion whether the circumstances recited in s. 5A(1) exist  or
\nnot  is\t entirely  for\tthe  Collector\tto  decide  in\t his
\ndiscretion,  it\t will  be seen that  the  recording  of\t the
\nreasons\t is  the only protection which is  afforded  to\t the
\npersons\t affected to ensure that the reasons which  impelled
\nthe Collector were those germane to the content and scope of
\nthe power vested in, him.  It could not be disputed that  if
\nthe  reasons  recorded by him were totally irrelevant  as  a
\njustification  for considering that an emergency had  arisen
\nor for dispensing with notice and enquiry under ss. 3 to  5,
\nthe  exercise of the power under s. 5A would be void as\t not
\njustified  by the statute.  So much learned Counsel for\t the
\nappellant had to concede.  But if in those circumstances
\n\t\t\t    115<\/span>
\nthe section requires what might be termed a “speaking order”
\nbefore\tpersons are saddled with liability we consider\tthat
\nthe  object with which the provision was inserted  would  be
\nwholly\tdefeated  and protection afforded nullified,  if  it
\nwere held that the requirement was anything but mandatory.
\nIf,  as\t we hold, the requirement was mandatory it  was\t not
\ndisputed  that\tthe orders of the Collector  which  did\t not
\ncomply\twith the statutory condition precedent must be\tnull
\nand  void and of no effect altogether.\tLearned Counsel\t for
\nthe  State  however draw our attention to the fact  that  in
\nseveral of these appears, before the Collectors passed these
\norders under s. 5A they had before them reports of Overseers
\nor Estimating Officers who had reported about the  condition
\nof the irrigation work and had\t   suggested   that   action
\nunder s. 5A was called for.   It  was, therefore,  suggested
\nthat  as the Collectors had, before they passed these  order
\nunder s. 5A, materials on the basis of which an order  under
\ns. 5A could be justified, it should be held that the  report
\nof  the Overseer or Estimating Officer and the order of\t the
\nCollector  should be read as part and parcel of each  other,
\nwith  the result that the requirement of the reasons  having
\nto  be\trecorded  in writing should be\theld  to  have\tbeen
\ncomplied with.\tIn the alternative it was submitted that  as
\n“reasons”  which could justify an order under s. 5A did\t in
\nfact  exist, the Collectors should be deemed to\t have  taken
\nthem  into account when in the course of the impugned  order
\nthey  recorded\ttheir opinion that “the delay which  may  be
\noccasioned by a notice under s. 3 would adversely affect the
\nlands  dependent on the irrigation works”.  We must  express
\nour inability to accept either submission.
\nThere  are two matters which though  somewhat  inter-related
\nare  never  the\t less distinct, and separate.\tOne  is\t the
\nconclusion or finding of the
\n116<\/span>
\nCollector  that\t the state of circumstances set\t out  in  s.
\n5A(1)  exist, and the other the reasons why and the  grounds
\nupon which the Collector reaches that conclusion that in the
\ncircumstances existing in a particular case it cannot  brook
\nthe delay which the resort to the normal procedure of notice
\nand enquiry for which provision is made by ss. 3 to 5 should
\nbe departed from.\n<\/p>\n
To  suggest that by a recital of the nature of\tthe  repairs
\nrequired to be carried out and employing the language of  s.
\n5A(1)  the officer has recorded his reasons for invoking  s.
\n5A  is\tto confuse the recording of the conclusion’  of\t the
\nofficer\t with  the  reasons for which  he  arrived  at\tthat
\nconclusion.   Besides  just  as\t it would  not\tbe  open  to
\nargument  that\tthe terms of s. 5A(1) will be  attracted  to
\ncases where there is factually an emergent need for  repairs
\nof the type envisaged by the section but the Collector\tdoes
\nnot so record in his order ; similarly the factual existence
\nof  reasons for the Collector’s conclusion would  not  avail
\nwhere  he does not comply with the statutory requirement  of
\nstating\t them in his order.  The reports of  the  Estimating
\nOfficer\t or  of the Overseer which were relied\ton  in\tthis
\ncontext\t would only indicate that those officers  considered
\nthat  action  under s. 5A was called for.   Several  of\t the
\nreports referred to in this connection extract the  material
\nwords of s. 5A(1) and conclude with a recommendation to\t the
\nSub-Divisional\tOfficer who was vested with the powers of  a
\nCollector  that\t it was a fit case for\taction\tbeing  taken
\nunder s. 5A.  What the section requires is that on the basis
\nof  materials which exist-this might include the reports  of
\nofficers  as well as information gathered by  the  Collector
\nhimself\t by personal inspection or after enquiry  he  should
\nreach the conclusion that irrigation works for the  purposes
\nset  out  in s. 5A should be immediately taken on  band\t and
\ncompleted and that there is such an emergency in having\t the
\nwork completed which will not
\n\t\t\t    117<\/span>
\nbrook that amount of delay which the notice and\t proceedings
\nunder  ss.  3 to 5 would entail.  It is\t not  therefore\t the
\npresence  of the material that is of sole relevance  or\t the
\nonly criterion but the Collector’s opinion as to the urgency
\ncoupled\t with  his recordings his reasons why  he  considers
\nthat  the  procedure  under ss. 3 to 5 should  not  be\tgone
\nthrough.   We are therefore unable to accept the  submission
\nthe  reports of the Overseers or Estimating  Officers  would
\nobviate\t the  infirmity\t arising from  the  failure  of\t the
\nCollector  to  record his reasons as required by  s.  5A(1).
\nFrom  the  fact\t that  under s.5 A  (1)\t the  power  of\t the
\nCollector  to make an order emerges on his being  bona\tfide
\nsatisfied regarding the matters set out in the\tsub-section,
\nit does not follow either that the reasons why be has formed
\nthat  opinion are immaterial, or that it is unnecessary\t for
\nhim  to state those reasons in the order that he makes,\t and
\nthat  his  omission to do so could be made up by  the  State
\nadducing  sufficient grounds therefore when the validity  of
\nthe  order  is challenged.  We have thus  no  hesitation  in
\nholding\t (a) that the requirement that the Collector  should
\nrecord\this reasons for the order made is mandatory and\t (b)
\nthat  this  requirement has not been complied  with  in\t the
\ncases before us, and (c) that in the circumstances the order
\nof the Collector was therefore null and void.
\nBefore proceeding further, it would be convenient to dispose
\nof  an\targument based on s. 5B.  It was  faintly  suggested
\nthat  the respondents were persons who had sustained a\tloss
\nby  reason  of a thing done by the Collector  and  that\t the
\nstatute\t provided a remedy therefore by permitting  a  claim
\nfor compensation under the provisions of s. 5B.\t We consider
\nthat this submission arises wholly on a misreading of s. 5B.
\nThe  “loss” for which the section provides  compensation  is
\nthat  directly\tarising from the doing of the work,  i.\t e.,
\nloss  sustained\t by third parties and not the  liability  to
\nmake the
\n118<\/span>
\napportioned  cost under ss. 11 and 12 for the very basis  of
\nthe liability under these provisions is that the person from
\nwhom  payments are demanded has benefited by the work  being
\ndone  in  that he being under an obligation  to\t effect\t the
\nrepairs, that obligation was discharged by the work done  at
\nthe instance of the Collector.\n<\/p>\n
Both  Mr.  Jha and Mr. Varma who appeared for the  State  in
\nthese  bathes of appeals raised a contention that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  bad no jurisdiction to afford the respondents  relief
\nunder  Art.  226 of the Constitution.  In  support  of\tthis
\nargument  two grounds were urged: First, that the orders  of
\nthe  Collector\tunder  s. 5A were  administrative  in  their
\nnature and therefore not amenable to the jurisdiction of the
\nHigh  Court for the issue of a writ of certiorari.   In\t our
\nopinion,  the contention proceeds upon a misapprehension  as
\nto  the\t nature of the objection raised and as\tregards\t the
\nparticular  orders  which were challenged  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt  What the High Court set aside were the demands  which
\nwere issued against the landlords under s. 11 of the Act and
\nwhich  were  sought  to be recovered as\t arrears  of  public
\ndemands\t under\ts. 12.\tNo doubt, those\t demands  had  their
\norigin\tin or were ultimately based upon an order passed  by
\nthe   Collector\t under\ts.  5A.\t  The  argument\t which\t the
\nrespondents  presented\tto  the High  Court  and  which\t the
\nlearned\t Judges accepted was that the demands  were  illegal
\nand not justified by law, because they had ultimately to  be
\nbased upon orders (under s. 5A) which were without jurisdic-
\ntion  and therefore void.  It would therefore be  seen\tthat
\nthe  respondents were not seeking to set aside\tthe  several
\norders\tpassed\tby the Collector under s. 5A  but  only\t the
\ndemands based on them on the ground that they were  illegal.
\nThe  High  Court had certainly jurisdiction to\tdirect\tthat
\nthese demands be quashed and should not be enforced.  If the
\norders under s. 5A on which these demands
\n 119<\/span>
\nwere based were void, i.e., as passed without  jurisdiction,
\nthey did not need to be set aside and therefore there was no
\nnecessity  for\ttaking any proceedings\tfor  obtaining\tsuch
\nrelief.\t They were non est.  If they were of that  character
\nthey could not serve as a foundation for the liability which
\nwas   sought  to  be  fastened\tupon  the   respondents\t  by
\napportionment under ss. 7 and 8 and by the issue of a notice
\nof  demand  under s. 10.  It was on this line  of  reasoning
\nthat the learned Judges have proceeded and we consider\tthat
\nthey  were  right.  If the orders under s. 5A had  no  legal
\nfoundation as being wholly without jurisdiction because\t the
\nstatutory requisites or conditions precedent for such orders
\nwere  not  satisfied, no liability to make a  payment  could
\narise out of such orders.\n<\/p>\n
The other submission was that several of the orders under  s
\n5A  were  passed  before the Constitution and  that  is\t the
\nConstitution was not retrospective the High Court could\t not
\nexercise  the  jurisdiction  which was for  the\t first\ttime
\nconferred  on it by Art. 226 of the Constitution in  respect
\nof  orders  passed  before  January 26,\t 1950.\t It  is\t not
\ndisputed  that\tall the several demands which  were  quashed
\nwere made after rejected the constitution.  For the  reasons
\nfor  which  we have the submission just now dealt  with\t the
\nargument in the present form must also be repelled.
\nMr. Varma next contended that the respondents must be deemed
\nto  have acquiesced in the orders passed under s. 5A by\t not
\nobjecting  to  them  immediately  and  that  they  were\t now
\nestopped from contending that they were void having, by\t the
\nexecution  of the work, obtained a benefit by the repair  of
\nthe  irrigation work.  There is no substance at all in\tthis
\nargument.  Section 5A does not contemplate any notice to the
\naffected party, and the public notice that the proviso to s.
\n5A provides for is a notice that the work has begun.’  There
\nis thus,
\n120<\/span>
\nbefore\tthe  completion\t of the work, no  provision  in\t the
\nstatute\t for the landlord to make his representations,\teven
\nassuming  that he is shown to have knowledge of the  passing
\nof  the order.\tSeeing that the very object of s. 5A  is  to
\npreclude  any objection which a landlord might have  to\t the
\nrepair\tof  an\tirrigation  work,  we  consider\t it   rather
\nanomalous  that- an argument should be addressed which\trest
\non the basis of a failure to object.  Reference was, in this
\nconnection, made to the terms of s. 46 under which the Board
\nof  Revenue have a general power of supervision and  control
\nover all orders and proceedings of the Collector and it\t was
\nurged  that  the failure on the part of the  respondents  to
\nhave availed themselves of this provision debarred them from
\nmoving\tthe High Court.\t This would turn upon  the  question
\nwhether\t the relief by resort to proceedings under  the\t Act
\nwould  be  sufficient  and adequate which  would  render  it
\nunnecessary  for  the  respondents to have  moved  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\tThough an objection of this sort appeared in some of
\nthe  counter-affidavits\t filed\tbefore the  High  Court\t the
\nmatter does not appear to have been pressed before the\tHigh
\nCourt  at the time of the arguments.  As the High Court\t had
\ncertainly  a discretion to grant relief under Art, 226\teven
\nif  there were other alternative statutory remedies,  we  do
\nnot propose to entertain this objection at this stage.
\nThe result is that these appeals fail and are dismissed with
\ncosts.\t There\twill  be only one hearing  fee\tas  all\t the
\nappeals were heard together.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t       Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    121<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1694, 1963 SCR (1) 98 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Subbarao, K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: THE COLLECTOR OF MONGHYR AND OTHERS Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217741","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Collector Of Monghyr And ... vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And ... on 28 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Collector Of Monghyr And ... vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And ... on 28 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-23T05:20:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-23T05:20:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\"},\"wordCount\":6372,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\",\"name\":\"The Collector Of Monghyr And ... vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And ... on 28 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-23T05:20:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Collector Of Monghyr And ... vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And ... on 28 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Collector Of Monghyr And ... vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And ... on 28 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-23T05:20:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962","datePublished":"1962-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-23T05:20:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962"},"wordCount":6372,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962","name":"The Collector Of Monghyr And ... vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And ... on 28 March, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-23T05:20:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-collector-of-monghyr-and-vs-keshav-prasad-goenka-and-on-28-march-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Collector Of Monghyr And … vs Keshav Prasad Goenka And … on 28 March, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217741","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217741"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217741\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}