Prospective operation of compensation amendment and limits on reopening final assessment rolls in land reform compensation

An amendment reducing compensation for mines and minerals was held prospective because it altered substantive rights and contained no clear retrospective language, so the unamended compensation provision continued to govern amounts already payable. The final compensation assessment roll also could not be reopened under correction or fresh-assessment provisions, as the compensation had been accepted without protest and the statutory conditions for reopening were absent. Although the refund direction was challenged on jurisdictional grounds, it was left undisturbed because setting it aside would have restored an illegal excess payment already made.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Bihar Land Reforms (Validation and Amendment) Act, 1974 operated retrospectively so as to govern the rate of compensation for mines and minerals; (ii) whether the final compensation assessment roll could be reopened or revised under the provisions relating to correction and fresh assessment, and whether the demand for refund of excess compensation was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Bihar Land Reforms (Validation and Amendment) Act, 1974 operated retrospectively so as to govern the rate of compensation for mines and minerals.

Analysis: The amended provision substituted the earlier method of determining compensation for mines and minerals and linked it to the rate prescribed under the general compensation provision. The amending Act came into force at once, but neither its text nor any necessary implication indicated retrospective operation. The change affected substantive rights by reducing the compensation ceiling, and a statute affecting substantive rights is presumed to be prospective unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise. The principle that current law governs current activities and the absence of express retrospective language led to the conclusion that the unamended provision governed compensation already payable.

Conclusion: The amending Act did not operate retrospectively and the unamended provision applied.

Issue (ii): Whether the final compensation assessment roll could be reopened or revised under the provisions relating to correction and fresh assessment, and whether the demand for refund of excess compensation was sustainable.

Analysis: The compensation was accepted without protest and was treated as having been determined by agreement under the relevant compensation provision. The power to correct entries before payment for bona fide mistake, succession, or transfer did not fit the facts, and the provision for a fresh assessment roll applied only where further interests were later discovered to have vested in the State. Since neither condition existed, the final assessment roll could not be reopened under those provisions. Even though the Board of Revenue was found to lack jurisdiction to issue the direction, interference was unwarranted because quashing the order would have revived an illegal grant of excess compensation.

Conclusion: The reassessment could not be reopened under the correction or fresh-assessment provisions, and the refund direction was upheld notwithstanding the jurisdictional objection.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the compensation was governed by the unamended law, the acceptance of compensation amounted to agreement, and the order directing refund of excess payment was not disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment reducing compensation is prospective unless retrospectivity is clearly indicated, and a court will not interfere with an otherwise irregular order where doing so would restore an illegal benefit already conferred.

---