Necessary party notice in compensation proceedings permits reopening, and prohibition will not bar jurisdiction to decide the preliminary issue.

The State Government was treated as a necessary party in compensation objection proceedings because the statutory scheme deemed it a participant and required separate notice through the Collector; the general Gazette publication did not replace that special notice. A decision taken without notice to that necessary party was not binding, so the Compensation Officer could consider reopening the proceedings and decide the privilege objection before further steps were taken. Prohibition was not available because the officer had jurisdiction to determine that preliminary question in the first instance. The appeal therefore succeeded only in setting aside the prohibition, while the matter was left for fresh decision according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the State Government was a necessary party to objections against compensation assessment and was entitled to separate notice and intimation of the date of hearing under the Act; (ii) whether the Compensation Officer could reopen the objection proceedings when the State Government had not been duly notified; and (iii) whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the Compensation Officer from considering the State Government's application to reopen the proceedings.

Issue (i): whether the State Government was a necessary party to objections against compensation assessment and was entitled to separate notice and intimation of the date of hearing under the Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated the State Government as a party to every proceeding before the Compensation Officer. The provision deeming it to be a party was read as imposing both a right to participate and an obligation that it be joined when objections were filed. The general Gazette publication to persons interested did not substitute for the special notice required to be served on the State Government through the Collector. Since compensation was payable by the State, it had a direct and manifest interest in the objection proceedings and was entitled to notice of hearing.

Conclusion: Yes. The State Government was a necessary party and was entitled to separate notice and intimation of hearing.

Issue (ii): whether the Compensation Officer could reopen the objection proceedings when the State Government had not been duly notified.

Analysis: A decision rendered without notice to a necessary party is not binding on that party. The matter was not one of review of a completed compensation roll in the strict sense, but of whether the proceeding had proceeded ex parte against a party who ought to have been heard. In such a situation, the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider whether the proceeding should be reopened and to decide the privilege objection before any further step was taken.

Conclusion: Yes. The Compensation Officer had jurisdiction to consider reopening the proceedings after deciding the privilege claim in accordance with law.

Issue (iii): whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the Compensation Officer from considering the State Government's application to reopen the proceedings.

Analysis: Prohibition lies to prevent a tribunal from acting without jurisdiction, not to stop it from deciding a question that lies within its competence in the first instance. Here, the question whether to reopen the proceedings had not yet been determined by the Compensation Officer, and the tribunal had jurisdiction to decide it. The High Court therefore acted too soon in prohibiting the officer from proceeding with the application.

Conclusion: No. The writ of prohibition was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the prohibition, while the challenge to the order quashing the earlier refusal to reopen was sustained. The matter was left for the Compensation Officer to decide afresh in accordance with law after dealing with privilege.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes a public authority a deemed party to compensation proceedings and requires notice to it in a prescribed manner, failure to serve that notice leaves the resulting decision open to being reopened, and prohibition will not lie against a tribunal that still has jurisdiction to decide that preliminary question.

---