The resumption of land by the Government conferred the right to grant occupancy rights to whom it pleased, ending any claims based on possessory or prescriptive titles against the Government.

Wallace, J.

1. The original suit was for recovery of the plaint property, survey field No. 12|1 measuring about 2 1/2 acres. The plaintiffs claim was by virtue of a long possession and prescriptive title, the defendants claim in virtue of a patta issued by Government. Either the land or the assessment of the land constituted a blacksmith inam, but neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants belong to the family of the original holders of the inam. On a decision as to which constituted the inam rests the decision of the case.

2. The first Court recorded a finding that the inam consisted of the assessment only. The Lower Appellate Court accepted that finding in one part of its judgment, paragraph 4, and in another part, paragraph 3, remarked that that the land formed part of the blacksmith inam cannot be denied. It is argued that in the latter sentence the Lower Appellate Court is using language loosely, but I am not able to accept that argument. The whole of the discussion in paragraph 3 of its judgment is with reference to possession and enjoyment of the land and the conclusion is that plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the land for over 12 years prior to suit, having been let into possession because they were doing blacksmiths service for the village so that the enjoyment of the land was by way of remuneration for the service. The reasonable deduction from such a letting into possession would be that the land itself was the inam. The findings of the Lower Appellate Court therefore present some inconsistency on the vital point.

3. It is argued that the Lower Courts have not decided this issue on evidence, but ignoring the evidence about it have decided it on a pure surmise drawn from a consideration of the Boards Standing Orders. The Lower Appellate Court simply accepts the argument of the trial Court on this point. The trial Courts argument is contained in paragraph 15 of the judgment, and it merely amounts to this, that since the Boards Standing Orders lay down that when Government proposes to resume land which is an inam the order shall be passed not by the Collector but by the Board of Revenue, and that since in this case the Collector passed the order, it must be taken that the Government did not intend to and did not resume the land. The order of resumption is Exhibit V, dated 23rd July, 1919. It is by the Collector and directs that "the resumed fields will be fully assessed and the assessment...paid...to Urali Asari (that is, the father of the 2nd plaintiff), the senior member of the working incumbents," and that "Iyan patta should issue in the names of the occupancy owners". I think the Lower Courts have misunderstood the Boards Standing Orders by confining their attention to Sub-section (3) of Order 55 without considering the Sub-section (2). The latter lays down that in a case of inam land being resumed, the Collector has first to resume the land and then may adopt one of the two alternatives, either to direct the assessment to be credited to general revenues or direct that it be paid to the working incumbent. The latter procedure is exactly that which has been adopted in Exhibit V as I read it, and it-appears to me clear that the order Exhibit V was passed under this section. It is true that Sub-section (3) does set out what is contained in paragraph 15 of the trial Courts judgment; but it obviously means that in ordinary cases the Collector shall assume that the working incumbent is entitled only to the assessment, and that only if he thinks the working incumbent ought to have the land also, thus ousting the persons in occupation, he shall report to the Board of Revenue for orders, That is, in a case of inam land the Collector can resume it and grant the assessment to the working" incumbent and the land to the persons in occupation; but if he wishes to oust the persons in occupation and put in the working incumbent he must report the case to the Board. It is obvious from Ex. V