The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for strict compliance with the statutory requirements of Act IX of 1847 for the assessment of riparian estates, including the comparison of maps at intervals of not less than ten years to assess added land.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit instituted to test the legality of an assessment of revenue made under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (IX of 1847). pie case for the plaintiffs is, that the disputed lands, which have been constituted into new estates and assessed with revenue, belonged to them by virtue of the is rights in Zemindar No. 11492 of Dacca Collectorate, and in Taluk No. 4058 of Faridpur Collectorate. The plaintiffs maintain that the assessment could not have been validly made under the provisions of Act IX of 1847 and has not in fact been made in accordance with those provisions. The plaintiffs further seek consequential relief by way of refund of revenue paid under compulsion together with damages thereon. The claim is resisted on behalf of the Secretary of State substantially on the grounds that the disputed lands were accretions to the zemindari taluk and mentioned by the plaintiffs, that they were liable to assessment as they had never before, been assessed with revenue, and that the assessment had been made in due exercise of statutory powers. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit except in respect of an area which, it was admitted on behalf of the defendant, had been included in the assessment by mistake. On the present appeal, the decision of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed on the ground that the assessment made by the Revenue Authorities was ultra vires, first, because the conditions essential for the assumption of jurisdiction by the Revenue Authorities as prescribed by Act IX of 1847 were not in existence; and, secondly, because the lands were not liable to assessment. The first of these objections manifestly goes to the root of the decision of the Board of Revenue which was pronounced on the 29th December 1913 and summarises, though not in full detail, the proceedings adopted by the Revenue Authorities for the assessment of the disputed lands.

2. It appears that on the 13th April 1861 a notification was issued in the Calcutta Gazette for sale of the zemindari rights of Government in more than two hundred tracts of land in khas mahals. One of these, No. 180, was described as "Touzi No. 9243--two pieces of land of Kismat Khagatia in Chur Madanasankar." As appears from the robkari of Mr. J.C. Dodgson, Collector of Dacca, dated 13th August 1861, the sale was held 011 the 20th May 1861 and was confirmed on the 13th August 1861. The area was not mentioned in the robkari, but reference was made to Touzi No. 9234 recorded as bearing a sadar juma of Rs. 1,242-11-7. It was expressly directed that the mahal be recorded as permanently settled. There is, we think, no room for controversy that the permanently settled estate came into existence as such on the 20th May 1861 and we are not at this stage concerned with the exact area intended to be included in this newly created permanently settled estate.

3. Some years later, on the basis of a robkar of the Deputy Collector of Dacca, dated 27th April 1870, and an order of the Board of Revenue, dated 17th November 1870, a notification was issued in the Calcutta Gazelle for the sale of another tract of khas mahal land described as "Touzi No. 9691--Pargana Gunanandi, Taluk Basiram Sarma, alluviated chur formed out of diluviated lands." The sale was held on the 15th March 1871 and a sale certificate was issued to the purchasers on the 3rd April 1871. We need not at this stage investigate what lands were intended to be covered by the sale certificate. It is sufficient to state that the Taluk as such came into existence on the 15th March 1871.

4. The plaintiffs contend that in respect of the zemindari and the taluk thus created in 1861 and 1871 respectively, the proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities were not taken in conformity with the requirements prescribed by Act IX of 1847. This renders necessary an examination of the statutory provisions.

5. The provisions of Act IX of 1847 were analysed in the judgment of the Judicial C