P L D 1971 Dacca 21 (PLP)

A. S. CHOWDHURY, J.‑In this case a rule was issued calling upon the Special Judge, Mymensingh (Subordinate Judge, 4th Court) and the respondent to show cause as to why the Special Judge should not be required to state the case and refer to this Court the following question of law:‑ "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the revenue authorities concerned should have exercised its jurisdic tion suo motu under section 49 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act and made necessary corrections in the Compensation Assessment Roll." Petitioner Masuda Khatun's case, briefly stated, is that her rent‑receiving interests as described in the petition have been acquired and that no compensation has been awarded to her in respect to the rent‑receiving interest in question, nor, any compensation has been paid to any one else in respect thereof. She submitted an application to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Mymensingh, for correction of the assessment roll in exercise of the authority vested in him under section 49 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tanancy Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). The Additional Deputy Commissioner sent the matter to the assessment officer for report. It appears from Annexure A to the petition that the Compensation Officer after obtaining report from the Circle Officer made the following observations:‑ "This is a bona fide mistake. This may be corrected under section 49 suo motu." Thereafter, it is found that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Mr. Kalimullah, passed the following order:‑‑ "After the filing of the belated application under section 49 of the Act, there appears to be no scope for suo motu action." Mr. Jalil who appears for the petitioners submits that this order of the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provision of section 49 of the Act. He also submits that the learned Special Judge fell into the same error and failed to interpret section 49 correctly. In support of his contention Mr. Jalil has invited our attention to the Reference Case No. 20 of 1968 (Hafizur Rahman Choivdhury and another v. Golarn Nabi ChaH,dhury and others, decided by this Court on 31‑7‑69 and the following passage occurring in the judgment of the Court delivered by my learned brother Nurul Islam, J. "It will therefore be seen that if any of the officers mentioned under section 49 is satisfied that a revision of the Compensation Assessment Roll is necessary, obviously on the ground of its being incorrect, he may direct such revision. A party may also ask for such revision within the prescribed time. But, after the expiry of that time if any mistake comes to notice of any of the said officers, that officer has the power of his motion to direct revision. This is what is called a power coupled with a duty. Compensation Assessment Roll pre‑supposes a correct Compensation Assessment Roll. If it appears to the Commissioner or any other officer mentioned in section 49, on the materials placed before him that correc tion is necessary, he may direct revision. A party aggrieved by much correction or omission to do so, may prefer an appeal to the Special Judge. An expropriated rent‑receiver may not, as of right under this section demand revision after expiry of the prescribed period but he may bring it to the notice of the officers mentioned under section 49 who may at any time, before the payment of compensation direct revision of the Roll if he is satisfied that such a course is called for owing to mistake therein. This is on the principle that when a power is conferred on any officer to be exercised suo motu by him, he may do so from whatever source an information calling for such exercise of the power is received by him." Mr. Jalil, therefore, urges that the view expressed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Revenue and the Special Judge is contrary to the principle laid down by this Court. He points out that in this case the Compensation Officer has admitted mistake and the respondent is, therefore, to correct roll. It is also urged by him that unless a correct compensation assessment roll is published, consequences as visualised in section 43 of the Act will not ensue. According to him, it is, therefore necessary for the purpose of acquisition that correct Compensation Assessment Roll is to be published. Mr. Shamsuzzaman, Assistant Government Pleader finds himself unable to argue that no question of law arises. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the Special Judge should be directed under section 52 (2) A of the Act to state the case and refer the question for our opinion. In the result, the rule is accordingly made absolute with costs assessed at three gold Mohars and the Special Judge is directed to refer the question quoted at the outset. In view of the delay which has already occurred in this matter, the Special Judge is directed to state the case forthwith as prayed for by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. NURUL ISLAM, J.‑I agree. S.A.H. Rule made absolute.