TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court recognizes retrospective application of amended law, dismisses appeal due to loss of valid plea</h1> <h3>Sukhram Singh and Ors. Versus Harbheji</h3> The court held that the amended Section 21 applied retrospectively, entitling Smt. Harbheji to plead the amendment, treating Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to the benefit of Section 21 as amended by Act XX of 1954.2. Finality of the order of the Compensation Officer dated October 25, 1956.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to the Benefit of Section 21 as Amended by Act XX of 1954:The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended in 1954, notably affecting Sections 21 and 157, and adding Chapter IX-A. The amendment to Section 21 was made retrospective, but the amendment to Section 157 did not explicitly state retrospectivity. The key question was whether Section 157 should also be read retrospectively when read with Section 21.The court noted that for a law to be retrospective, it must be expressly stated or clearly implied. It was determined that Section 157(1)(a) must be read to apply retrospectively. The rationale was that making Section 21(h) retrospective without making the corresponding clauses in Section 157 retrospective would neutralize the effect of the amendment. The court concluded that the legislature intended for the amendments to operate retrospectively to align with the retrospective application of Section 21(h). Thus, Smt. Harbheji was entitled to plead the amended section, which meant that Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh must be treated as Asamis.2. Finality of the Order of the Compensation Officer Dated October 25, 1956:The second issue was whether the order of the Compensation Officer dated October 25, 1956, which declared Sukhram Singh and Laiq Singh as Adhivasis, had finality. The court observed that the Compensation Officer, who was also an Assistant Collector, did not refer the case to himself after framing an issue, as required by law. Instead, he dismissed Smt. Harbheji's objection without proper adjudication.The court held that the order of the Compensation Officer did not have the finality claimed for it because it was not passed in the capacity of the Assistant Collector after framing an issue and referring it to the competent court. Moreover, since proceedings under Section 202 of the Land Reforms Act were already pending, the Compensation Officer should have stayed his hands. Therefore, the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director were correct in treating the order as not final.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Smt. Harbheji was entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 21, and the order of the Compensation Officer did not have the finality to preclude further proceedings. No order as to costs was made, acknowledging that an amendment of the law deprived the appellants of a valid plea.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
