SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1924 Supreme(Cal) 440

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
N.R. Chatterjea, J., Chotzner, J.
Kumar Sankar Roy Chowdhury & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary of State for India in Council - Respondent
Decided On : 04-06-1924

The sale conveyed the entire estate No. 1071, and the lands, being reformation of the estate, cannot be reassessed with revenue.

Headnote:

Government Estate - Dispute over lands forming part of Touzi No. 1071 - Act II of 1819, Act VII of 1876, Land Registration Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Act II of 1819, Act VII of 1876 - The judgment discusses the interpretation of the sale notification dated 1st May 1863 and the legal implications of the Touzi No. 1071. It highlights the recognition of the area of the estate by the Government and the impact of the Revenue Survey Map on the lands in dispute.

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over the ownership of lands forming part of Touzi No. 1071, sold by the Government in 1863, and subsequent revenue assessments.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the entire estate No. 1071 was sold in 1863, and the lands, being reformation of the estate, cannot be reassessed with revenue.

Issues: Interpretation of the sale notification, recognition of Touzi No. 1071 by the Government, and the impact of Revenue Survey Map on the disputed lands.

Ratio Decidendi: The sale conveyed the entire estate No. 1071, and the lands, being reformation of the estate, cannot be reassessed with revenue.

Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs in both Courts.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit (Suit. No. 81 of 1915) which was one for declaration that the lands in dispute, 784 acres, which Government formed into a Deara Estate No. 1503 with a revenue of Rs. 5,681--was part of the plaintiffs. permanently settled estate Char Aiokdia, Touzi No. 1071 (present Touzi No. 174) held at a fixed revenue, that Government had no right to assess the lands in disputes with revenue and for other reliefs. The disputed lands are shown in the case map in two blocks, the northern is called Ka and the southern Kha, both being coloured yellow. The proceedings which immediately led up to the institution of the present suit are the following.

2. The Assistant Deara Survey Superintendent found that certain newly formed lands Were not included in the settlement of the estate Alokdia which was sold in 1863 to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs objected to the Deara proceedings, but those objections were rejected and the proceedings were forwarded to the Board of Revenue for sanction. They were accordingly sanctioned by the Board of Revenue, and a settlement of the lauds for 12 years was made from the 1st April 1914 to 31st March 1916. The plaintiffs took settlement under protest.

3. It appears that in 1844 a big chur was thrown up on the bed of the river Brahmaputra. The Government took proceedings under Regulation II of 1819 and got possession of the lands. These lands constituted Char Aiokdia and became the property of Government. In 1852, Thak Survey was made of those land and it was found that 8211 bighas appertained to the Mahal. The Revenue Survey took place in 1854 in which also, it was found that the same quantity of lands appertained to that mehal. The Government made temporary settlements of the mehal from time to time, and ultimately on the 30th May, 1863, issued a notification in the Calcutta Gazette for the sale of the mehal. The terms of the sale notification were these:

Notice is hereby given that zemindari right of Government to the undermentioned khas mehal, situated in the District of Pabna, and mentioned in the statement hereunto annexed will be put up to sale.

4. The statement of the mehal was as follows.

 Touzi    Name of Area      Jama       1 per       Total   No.    Mchal and       Assessed,     cent, for  Sudder          Paryanah.                     Roads       Jama  1071    Island Cliur   5503-6-4 887-10-11 8-11-0 896-8-11          Alakdiya,          Perganali          Berahimpur.

5. Upset price 1793-1-10.

6. The mehal was purchased by one Mr. Trisancli on behalf of the Nathpur Indigo Concern, and the plaintiffs predecessor Oungamoni Chowdhurani purchased the mehal from the owner of that concern on the 28th March 1878. Gungamoni after purchasing it applied for registration of her name under the Land Registration Act. Her name was registered in-respect of mehal Jazira Char Alokdia, Touzi No Old 1071 present No. 174.

7. In the General (A) Register (under Sections 6 and 7 of Act VII of 1876) the estate is described as "Alokdia Jazira Char" the Touzi No. is given as 174, the total area 2726 acres 2 roods, 27 poles, and the Government lie venue Rs. 887-8-11. The area corresponds exactly with the area mentioned in the Revenue Survey Map. It is true that the entry in the General Register does not affect the Government, but it shows that the Government recognized the area of the estate to be the same as stated above.

8. There were three proceedings for assessment of revenue with respect to some lands of Char Alokdia before the proceedings of 1913 referred to above. In 1874-75 certain lands were formed into a new estate No. 1141 on the ground that those lands were newly formed chur lands. At that time Mr. Graharm the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was the owner of Char Alokdia. He objected that the Government had no right to create a new estate in respect of the lands which had already formed part of Char Alokdia. The Collector Mr. Rees recommended the canc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top