Judgment Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners in this application had initially prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding/directing respondent No. 6: (a) to prepare Draft Compensation Assessment Rolls under the provisions of Sec. 26 of the Act-- (i) after deciding the objections of the petitioners, and (ii) in terms of Sec. 20 of the Act and Rule 34-A of the Rules and in view of the law laid down by this Hon ble Court in a case reported in 1981 BBCJ 609 . (b) to compute compensation payable to the petitioners for mines and minerals in terms of Sec. 25(4) as it stood in original Act or before coming into force of Bihar Act 15 of 1974 because the date of vesting of petitioners estate was 14-11-1951. (c) to accept the calculations or drafts forms E, F and Q corresponding to Annexures 7, 8 and 9 series prepared by the petitioners and to make payments as early as possible as per Annexure 10 series. (d) to pay all arrears of ad-interim compensation and final compensation, with interest, within reasonable time fixed by this Hon ble Court. And on return of the rule and after hearing the parties he further pleased to make the rule absolute against the respondents. 2. On or about 6-8-1990, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ petition bringing on records certain subsequent events wherein, inter alia, prayer was made to insert the following reliefs in paragraph 1 of the writ petition: (d) (i) that present writ application is also for issuance of a writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof for quashing/rescinding/ canceling: (1) the preliminary draft assessment roll published on 19-1-1990 in Form P(6) in case No. 2/50-52 by respondent--Additional Collector (Annexure 11) in terms of Sec. 26 of the Bihar kand, Reforms Act, 1950 (Act 30 of 1950) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only) read with rules, being Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules only) framed there under. (2) the final assessment roll published on 20-2-1990 in Form G in Case No. 2/50-53 under the signature of the respondent-Additional Collector (Annexure 11/a); and (3) the orders dated 23-5-1990 and dated 16-6-1990 passed in Case No. 2/52-53 by respondent-Additional Collector (Annexure 12 and 12/a) whereby objections of the petitioners were decided. 3. (2) the final assessment roll published on 20-2-1990 in Form G in Case No. 2/50-53 under the signature of the respondent-Additional Collector (Annexure 11/a); and (3) the orders dated 23-5-1990 and dated 16-6-1990 passed in Case No. 2/52-53 by respondent-Additional Collector (Annexure 12 and 12/a) whereby objections of the petitioners were decided. 3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. One Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singha was the proprietor of Nawagarh Raj Estate comprising of two wusis being Baghmara and Topchanchi situate in the district of Dhanbad which vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in terms of the notification dated 6-7-1951 published in the Gazette on 14-11-1951. According to the petitioners on the date of vesting of the estate, the members of the joint family consisted of the following: (a) Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singha, proprietor. (b) Smt. Tara Kumari Devi, wife of Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singha. (c) Sri Kamakhya Narayan Singha. (d) Rajmata Gyani Maharani, wife of Sri Kamakhya Narayan Singha. (e) Raja Satendra Narayan Singha, son of Sri Kamakhya Narayan Singha. (f) Kunwarani Indira Devi, daughter of Sri Kamakhya Narayan Singha. 4. The ex-proprietor of the Nawagarh Raj estate did not file any return, but respondent No. 6, suo motu initiated a proceeding for payment of compensation which was registered as Compensation case No. 2 of 1952-53. A Draft Compensation Roll was prepared but according to the petitioner, the same was against the provisions of law. It was also contended that expropriator was entitled to compensation in relation to the minerals which were un worked. 5. The petitioners filed a writ application being CWJC No. 262 of 1979 (R) which was eventually dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 31-1-1979. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1981 which was dismissed on 5-5-1987. The said decision is reported in 1987 PLJR 47 (SC). The petitioners have contended that the petitioner No. 2 had left India in the year 196o for higher studies and came back; in 1984. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1981 which was dismissed on 5-5-1987. The said decision is reported in 1987 PLJR 47 (SC). The petitioners have contended that the petitioner No. 2 had left India in the year 196o for higher studies and came back; in 1984. That on 14-10-1987 after decision of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, the petitioners filed an objection stating therein that--(1) in preparation of draft compensation assessment roll provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act and Rule 34-A of the Rules have been ignored, (b) net income from Zamindari interest other than for mines and minerals have been wrongly calculated and there are errors in the calculation, and (c) there was no mention of interim compensation which is payable for the period 14-11-1951 till 31-3-1973 i.e. for 21--38 years. The said petition is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioners have claimed compensation in relation to Zamindari interest amounting to Rs. 3,59,232-84 and for income from mines and minerals on account of royalty of Rs. 6,11,579.70. In the said objection, the petioners contended as follows:- (a) on account of claim cases only Rs. 67,420.84 should have been dedicated, but by wrong calculation and mistake, Rs. 3,08,875.45 have been deducted; (b) deduction on account of income tax should have been made Rs. 57,000 only and not Rs. 1,60,000. (c) agricultural income tax amounting to Rs. 2,571.07 was wrongly deducted as the same was contrary to the State Governments instructions contained in letter No. A-II-97/9/78-12711, Patna, dated 11-12-1979 issued from the Office of the Commercial Taxes Commissioner-cum-Ex. Officio Special Secretary, Bihar, Patna, as all agricultural income tax dues have been withdrawn by the Government. 7. According to the petitioners they took steps separately for computation of compensation for mines and minerals which was subject-matter of various mining leases but no royalty was received in respect thereof. The petitioners have filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 245 of 1989(R) which is still pending. 8. The petitioners contended that the respondent No. 6 did not decide the objections relating to grant of compensation in respect of other properties vested in the State and thus the petitioners filed a writ Petition in this Court which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2417 of 1988(R). 8. The petitioners contended that the respondent No. 6 did not decide the objections relating to grant of compensation in respect of other properties vested in the State and thus the petitioners filed a writ Petition in this Court which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 2417 of 1988(R). By order dated 7-2-1989 this Court passed the following order which is contained in Annexure 4 to this writ petition:- The grievance of the petitioners is that final compensation roll under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1950 with regard to the intermediary interest of the petitioners had not yet been prepared. Respondent No. 7, the Compensation Officer (Additional Collector), Dhanbad, is directed to prepare and final compensation roll in the name of the petitioners within 30th June, 1989. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to compensation in terms of Sec. 20 and Rule 34-A. They may bring the sections to the notice of the concerned officer, who shall take it into consideration for passing final order. 9. According to the petitioners, despite the said order, the Compensation Officer did not take any action for a long time, but on 30-6-1989 hurriedly prepared a final compensation roll in order to save himself from a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioners, therefore, filed another writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1/69 of 1989(R). 10. According to the petitioners, respondents again did not take into consideration the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and Rule 34-A of the Rules and the final compensation roll was prepared on 30-6-1989 whereupon the petitioners filed the aforementioned writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1989(R) and by order dated 1-8-1989 a Division Bench of this Court passed an order which is contained in Annexure 5 to the instant writ application wherein this Court passed the following order:- 1-8-1989: It seems the Compensation Officer, Additional Collector, Dhanbad (respondent No. 6) has purported to pass the impugned order as contained in Annexure 6 in quite some hurry without following the procedure enjoined by the Bihar Land Reforms Act merely in order to get over the difficulty that he may have been put into by not completing the final compensation assessment roll on or before the 30th June, 1989. This Court had never meant the respondent No. 6 to some how or the other give semblance of law to a so called final compensation roll by passing any sort of order without following the statutory procedure as laid down in the Act. The impugned so-called compensation assessment roll as contained in Annexure-6 is not an assessment roll in the eye of law at all and so it has to be quashed. We, accordingly, quash it. The Proper procedure for respondent No. 6, the compensation officer, would now be to hear the petitioners or their representatives on the objections raised by them and then prepare a draft compensation assessment roll as envisaged by law in Sec. 26 read with Secs. 24, 24-A and 25 of the Act. Since the matter has been hanging fire for a very long time, it would be meet and proper that respondent No, 6 prepares a preliminary draft assessment roll in terms of Sec. 26 read with Secs. 24, 24-A and 25 of the Act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, when the petitioners or any of them have/has exhausted the internal remedy by way of appeal under Sec. 25 of the Act, a final publication of the-compensation assessment roll may be made under Sec. 28 of the Act. That is the only proper and legal procedure warranted by the provisions of law to which respondent No. 6 must adhere irrespective of what he has done here to before. This application, is accordingly, disposed of. 11. The petitioners have, inter alia, alleged in this application that despite communication of the said order, respondent No. 6 had not been deciding the objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners contended that they had themselves prepared necessary draft compensation roll as contained in Annexurer 7, 8 and 9 which the respondents should be directed to check and prepare a preliminary draft compensation roll according to the provisions of the Act. 12. It appears that during the pendency of this application, respondent No. 6 prepared a draft compensation roll (Annexure-11) on 19-1-1990 and a final compensation roll on 20-2-1990. The said compensation rolls are contained in Annexuies-11 and 11-A to the application for amendment of the writ petition filed by the petitioners. 13. 12. It appears that during the pendency of this application, respondent No. 6 prepared a draft compensation roll (Annexure-11) on 19-1-1990 and a final compensation roll on 20-2-1990. The said compensation rolls are contained in Annexuies-11 and 11-A to the application for amendment of the writ petition filed by the petitioners. 13. It further appears that the petitioners objections were purported to have been considered by respondent No. 6 in terms of his order dated 23-5-1990 as contained in Annexure-12 to the said application for amendment of the writ petition. 14. In view of the subsequent developments as noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ application which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 21-8-1990. 15. In view of the fact that respondent No. 6 has since prepared a draft assessment roll (Annexre-11) as also a final compensation roll by response of the orders as contained in Annexure-11-A to the writ application dated 16-6-1990, the prayers made in the original writ application cannot be granted: 16. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners firstly submitted that rule of lineal primogeniture being no longer available in view of coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, respondent No. 6 should have allowed more units to the petitioners keeping in view the number of members of the joint Hindu family as referred to herein above. 17. Learned Counsel in this connection relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratop Deo V/s. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratup Deo and Ors. -- . 18. Learned Counsel next contended that so far as computation of compensation in respect of mines and minerals are concerned, the same should have been considered in terms of Sec. 25(4) of the Act as it stood prior to enactment of Bihar Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, (Bihar Act 15 of 1974). According to the learned Counsel, Bihar Act 15 of 1974 operates prospectively and not retrospectively. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied on unreported of this Court in Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo V/s. State of Bihar, in C.W.J.C. No. 540 of 1983(R) disposed of on 13-9-1989. 19. It was next contended that in publishing the final compensation roll, Rule 21 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules was not at all taken into consideration. 20. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied on unreported of this Court in Maharaja Chintamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo V/s. State of Bihar, in C.W.J.C. No. 540 of 1983(R) disposed of on 13-9-1989. 19. It was next contended that in publishing the final compensation roll, Rule 21 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules was not at all taken into consideration. 20. It was further contended that the final compensation roll was prepared without considering the objections of the petitioners and without taking into consideration the directions of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1989(R) (Annexure-5). It was also submitted that the Annexure-11-A was prepared in violation of the principles of natural justice. 21. Mr. M.Y. Iqbal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that from a perusal of Annexure-12 to the writ application, it would appear that the petitioners did not take any step for filing objections with regard to the draft/final compensation roll. According to the learned Counsel as by reason of Annexure-12 to the writ application, the petition filed by the petitioners has been considered, no interference in this writ application is called for. 22. In the writ petition, the petitioners have not stated the effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 390 of 1991 and merely referred to the citation of the reported case, from a perusal whereof it appears that the contention of the petitioners to the effect that they were entitled to compensation in respect of virgin mines was negatived. Further, although the petitioners in the writ application stated that separate writ application was tiled with regard to the alleged compensation of mines and minerals, the (sic) same matter is sought to be agitated in this application also. 23. If also does not appear to be clear as to under what circumstances the petitioner questioned the purported inaction on the part of the respondent No. 6 in preparing final compensation roll in C.W.J.C. No. 2417 of 1988(R) whereas in the subsequent writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 1269 of 1989(R) by reasons of Annexure-5 to the writ application, a draft assessment was directed to be prepared in accordance with law, Even at the time of hearing, learned Counsel did not state as to whether C.W.J.C. No. 245 of 1989(R) is still pending in this Court or not. 24. 24. It may also be noted that despite several opportunities having been granted, state has not filed any counter-affidavit, This attitude on the part of the State must be depreciated. 25. From Paragraph 8 of the writ application, it appears that the compensation roll was prepared in the name of Sri Kamakhya Narayan Singh, Satyendra Singh and Rajmata Gyani Maharani. The petitioners have relied upon Annexure-1, a Circular letter of the State of Bihar wherein radical changes brought in the matter of inheritance and succession by reason of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, it does not appear that the petitioners in the earlier writ applications raised the question as to whether the draft assessment roll should have been have been prepared in the names of all the persons mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the writ application as quoted hereinbefore and/or the effect of the decree passed on 30-5-1968 in partition Suit No. 35 of 1966. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Counsel contended that the rule of lineal primogeniture has lost relevants after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The petitioner, therefore, must be held to have admitted that the matter of succession in relation to Nawagarh Raj estate was being governed under/ the rule of lineal primogeniture. In this case, this Court is not concerned as to what would be the share of the co-sharers. Compensation is paid for vesting of zamindari which in this case took place in the year 1951 i.e., much before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in terms of the provisions of the said Act and rules made there under, compensation has to be computed for vesting of the estate in the State of Bihar as on 13- 11-1951. (a this situation, the effect of customs relating to the rules of primogeniture viz-a-vis the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 becomes wholly irrelevant. 26. Compensation itself being a property, the same may have to be divided amongst the heirs of the ex-proprietors of the Nawagarh Raj in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but as noticed hereinbefore, the same has no application in the instant case. 27. 26. Compensation itself being a property, the same may have to be divided amongst the heirs of the ex-proprietors of the Nawagarh Raj in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, but as noticed hereinbefore, the same has no application in the instant case. 27. Sec. 25(4) of the Act as it stood prior to enactment of Act 15 of 1974 reads as follows: 25(4) After the net income from royalties has been computed under Sub-sections (2) and (3), the Compensation Officer shall proceed to determine the amount of compensation to be payable to the intermediary in the matter and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that it to say-- (a) where the amount of compensation fixed by agreement, it shall be determined in accordance with such agreement; (b) where no such agreement is reached within the prescribed period, the compensation officer shall refer the question of the determination of the amount of compensation to a Tribunal to be appointed by the State Government in this behalf; (c) for the purpose aforesaid, the Tribunal to be appointed by the State Government shall consist of a District Judge; (d) The State Government shall nominate a Mining Expert to assist the Tribunal; (e) at the commencement of the proceeding before the Tribunal, the State Government and the intermediary shall state what in their respective opinion is a fair amount of compensation; (f) the Tribunal in giving its award shall have regard to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3) and to the opinion of the Mining Expert, with regard to the extent of the mining operations carried on and of the minerals obtained, and determine the amount of compensation to be payable to the intermediary at such rate which shall be net less than three and not more than twenty times of the not income from royalties as may appear to the Tribunal to be fair and equitable; (g) every award made by the Tribunal under this Sub-sec. shall be final and shall be communicated to the compensation officer who made the reference and there upon he shall proceed to complete to the compensation assessment roll accordingly. 28. This Court in Maharaja Chinitamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo (supra) held that Act 15 of 1974 is prospective in nature. shall be final and shall be communicated to the compensation officer who made the reference and there upon he shall proceed to complete to the compensation assessment roll accordingly. 28. This Court in Maharaja Chinitamani Sharan Nath Shahdeo (supra) held that Act 15 of 1974 is prospective in nature. In that case, final assessment roll in terms of Sec. 25(4) of the Act had already been prepared and the amount agreed to was paid to the petitioner(s) thereof. No appeal in that ease was preferred against the order of compensation by the State. Such is not the case here. Admittedly, no compensation roll was prepared in the name of the petitioner prior to the coming into force of the 1974 Amending Act. There cannot be any doubt that the petitioners have a right to receive compensation. By reasons of Act 15 of 1974, such a right has not been taken away. Sec. 25 is a procedural provision whereby mode of computing the amount of compensation was provided and in terms whereof the provisions of Sec. 24(1) of the Act has to be taken recourse to for the purpose of computing the compensation as laid down under Sec. 25(4) of the Act. 29. As indicated hereinbefore, no compensation having been paid to the petitioners nor any compensation roll having been prepared before coming into force of the Act in 1974, respondent No. 6 was bound to compute the amount of compensation according to the amended provisions. By doing so, the provisions of Act 15 of 1974 has not been applied retrospectively, but merely a prospective effect thereof has been given. 30. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that Sec. 25 of the Act as amended has not been applied retrospectively in the case of the petitioner. 31. Rule 21 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules reads as follows: 21. Manner of publishing Draft Compensation Assessment Roll under Section 26(1)-- (1) After the draft of the Compensation Assessment Roll under Secs. 19, 24-A, 25 or 30-A as the case may be, has been prepared, the Compensation Officer, with the approval of such authority as may be notified by the Government in this behalf shall publish the same by affixing a copy thereof together with a public notice in Form P(6) to the notice board of the office where the draft Compensation Assessment Roll has been prepared. The Compensation Assessment Roll should be published for a period of 30 clear days. The record shall be kept In charge of Compensation Officer who shall give every facility to all persons for inspecting the Compensation Assessment Roll. Any person interested in the Compensation Assessment Roll may be allowed to take relevant extracts thereof. But if any person asks for a copy of the roll, it shall be issued on payment of the charges laid down in the Bihar Records Manual, 1951. The Compensation Officer shall also invite objections within 60 days after the expiry of the period of publication. (2) On the expiry of the period fixed for entertaining objection; the Compensation Officer, after giving reasonable notice to the person interested in the objection shall hear the parties on the objection and shall receive such evidence as he may consider necessary. The Compensation Officer, after hearing the parties, may either reject the objection, modify any entry or entries made in the draft compensation Assessment Roll or uphold the entries made therein. 32. The aforementioned rule appears to be mandatory in nature. Evidently, the draft Compensation Roll was prepared on 19-1-1990 and the final compensation roll was prepared on 28-2-1990. It is, therefore, clear that the provisions of Rule 21 were not complied with. In view of contravention of Rule 21 aforementioned, the petitioners are entitled to raise objections in relations to preparation of a final assessment roll. It is true that by reason of the order as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application, the respondent No. 6 purported to have considered the objections filed by the petitioners. That order is not in accordance with the provisions of law inasmuch as objections are to be considered in relation to the draft Assessment Roll and not after final compensation roll has already been prepared. A right of hearing at the appropriate stage is valuable right. Such a valuable right could not have been taken away by the respondents in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 21. In this view of the matter, neither the order as contained in Annexure-12, nor the final assessment as contained in Annexure-11-A can be sustained. The same are accordingly quashed. 33. Respondent No. 6 is directed to pass a fresh final assessment roil after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after considering the objections raised by them as indicated hereinbefore. The same are accordingly quashed. 33. Respondent No. 6 is directed to pass a fresh final assessment roil after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after considering the objections raised by them as indicated hereinbefore. For the purpose of giving such opportunities, respondent No. 6 need not wait for sixty days more in terms of Rule 21 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, as the said a period has already expired. However, it appears from Annexure-11-A that the petitioner having been held to be entitled to rupees two lakhs and odd, the respondent No. 6 is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioners after deducting the amount of income tax in terms of the order of the income tax authorities. 34. The petitioners will be at liberty to raise before the respondent No. 6 all contentions which have been raised in this application as also the question of their right to obtain interest on the compensation amount in view of the provisions for payment of ad-interim compensation payable to the ex-intermediary under the provisions of the said Act and Rules framed there under. 35. The respondent No. 6 shall pass a speaking order upon considering the objections of the petitioners and thereafter shall proceed to prepare final assessment roll in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application, is disposed of. But in the facts and circumstances in this case, there will be no order as to costs.