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

1923 Supreme(Cal) 237

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rankin, J., Mookerjee, J.
Saudamini Dassya & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Secretary of State for India & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 10-04-1923

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of historical evidence, including revenue surveys and maps, in determining land boundaries and the validity of settlement under Act IX of 1847. The court emphasized the limitations of relying solely on maps for determining land boundaries and highlighted the significance of the comparison of maps to determine added land for assessment.

Headnote:

Alluvion and Diluvion Act - Assessment of Revenue - Act IX of 1847 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 - The judgment discusses the provisions of Act IX of 1847, which deals with the assessment of lands gained from the sea or rivers by alluvion or dereliction. It emphasizes the importance of revenue surveys and the comparison of maps to determine added land for assessment. The court also highlights the significance of historical evidence and the limitations of relying solely on maps for determining land boundaries.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs appealed against the assessment of revenue on disputed lands, claiming that the lands were included in their permanently settled estate and not liable for assessment. The defendants appealed against the declaration that the settlement made with them was ultra vires and invalid. The court analyzed historical evidence, including revenue surveys and maps, to determine the boundaries of the estates and the validity of the settlement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the assessment proceedings were validly conducted in compliance with the statutory requirements. It emphasized the importance of historical evidence and the limitations of relying solely on maps for determining land boundaries. The court upheld the decision that the disputed lands did not appertain to estate No. 4823.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the assessment proceedings under Act IX of 1847 and the determination of whether the disputed lands were included in the plaintiffs' permanently settled estate. The court also addressed the claim by the defendants regarding the settlement made with them and the reservation of malikana.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of historical evidence, including revenue surveys and maps, in determining the boundaries of the estates and the validity of the settlement. It highlighted the limitations of relying solely on maps for determining land boundaries and the significance of the comparison of maps to determine added land for assessment.

Final Decision: The appeal by the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs in favor of the Secretary of State, while the appeal by the defendants was dismissed with costs in favor of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit instituted by them with a view to test the legality of an assessment of revenue made under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (IX of 1847). The case for the plaintiffs is that the disputed lands, which have been assessed with revenue, belonged to them as appertaining to their estate No. 4823, on the revenue roll of the Collector of Backergunge. They maintain that the assessment would not have been validly made under the provisions of Act IX of 1847 as the lands are not added lands within the meaning of that statute; and they ask for a declaration that the assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction, that the settlement made with the defendants by the Secretary of State is illegal and for consequential relief. On behalf of the Secretary of State, who is the first defendant, the claim, has been resisted on the ground that the disputed lands are not included within estate No. 4828, but are accretions to estates Nos. 1721 and 1722 held by the other defendants, and have been rightly assessed with revenue. The Subordinate Judge has held that the disputed lands form an alluvial increment to estate No. 4823, that the plaintiffs as proprietors of that estate are entitled to hold the lands subject to the payment of the revenue assessed, and that the settlement made with the defendants is invalid and inoperative. The plaintiff as well as the defendants other than the Secretary of State are dissatisfied with this decision. The plaintiffs have appealed on the ground that the lands are included in their permanently settled estate and are not liable to be assessed with revenue. The defendants have appealed on the ground that the lands ate accretions to their estates and have been rightly settled with them. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs (No. 237 of 1919) requires examination first, in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.

2. The provisions of Act IX of 1847 were analysed in the judgment of the Judicial Committee delivered by Lord Herschell in the case of Secy. of State v. Fahamidannissa [1889] 17 Cal. 590; the Judicial Committee affirmed the decision of the majority of the Full Bench in Fahamidannissa v. Secy. of State [1886] 14 Cal. 67 (F.B.) which had overruled in part the decision of Wilson, J., in Sarat Sundari v. Secy. of State [1885] 11 Cal. 784. Act IX of 1847 was framed for the assessment of lands gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction. Section 3 empowers the Government to direct new surveys of riparian lands, and provides as follows:

Within the said provinces it shall be lawful for the Government of Bengal, in all districts or parts of districts of which a revenue-survey may have been or may hereafter be completed and approved by Government, to direct from time to time, whenever ten years from the approval of any such survey shall have expired, anew survey of lands on the banks of rivers and on the shores of the sea, in order to ascertain the changes that may have taken place since the date of the last previous survey, and to cause new maps to be made according to such new survey.

3. Section 4 lays down that the approval of the revenue surveys of districts or parts of districts, which may be hereafter surveyed, shall be deemed to have taken place on such day as may be specified as the day of such approval in the Calcutta Gazette. Sections 5 and 6 deal, respectively, with the question of deduction from jama of estates from which lands have been washed away, and the question of the assessment of increments to revenue paying estates. Section 6 which is relevant, in the case before us, provides as follows:

Whenever on inspection of any such new map, it shall appear to the local Revenue-authorities that land has been added to any estate paying revenue directly to Government, they shall, without delay, assess the same with a revenue payable to Government according to the rules in force for assessing alluvial increments and shal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top