RANENURA NARAYAN SINHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - On December 17, 1945 Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha commenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge. Murshidabad against the Province of Bengal, for an order declaring that he "is entitled to abatement out of the revenue payable by him for Pargana Goas Tauzi No. 623 of the Murshidabad Collectorate on account of resumption of 11 Ferries lying within Huda Alaipur to the extent of Rs. 4800/- per annum" and for a decree "refunding excess revenue realized by the Province of Bengal". Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representative Ranendra Narayan Sinha prosecuted the suit. The suit was resisted, after the India Independence Act by the State of West Bengal. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. He awarded to the plaintiff a decree for "abatement of revenue" payable by the plaintiff in respect of the estate "bearing separate account No. 523-3 in consequence of resumption by the Government of 11 ferries referred to in the plaint to the extent of Rs. 4800/- per annum", and a decree for Rs. 14,440/- being the amount of revenue recovered during three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit. In appeal the High Court of Calcutta reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court.

(2.) There is not much dispute about the facts which give rise to the claim. By Regulation 1 of 1793 called "The Bengal Permanent Settlement Regulation 1793," the Governor-General-in-Council gave legislative recognition to the Proclamation previously addressed to the zamindars, independent Talukdars and other actul proprietors of land paying revenue to Government in the Province of Bengal. Thereby, inter alia, the Jammu assessed upon the land under the permanent settlement was to be continued after the expiry of the period of the current decennial settlerment, and to remain unalterable. The amount payable to the Government for rue Pargana Goas was determined at the time of permanent settlement at (Sicca) Rs. 99,160/11/11/3/4 Gondas. The Pargana consisted of 12 Hudas or groups of Mouzas, one of which was Huda Alaipur. Appertaining to Huda Alaipur are 11 ferries. The revenue of Alaipur estate was fixed at (Sicca) Rs. 10,052/6/5 including (Sicca) Rs. 4,500/- as the revenue payable in respect of the ferries. By Act 17 of 1835 the Sicca Rupees of the Company in terms of which the revenue was assessed were converted into New Company's Rupees and in view of the change in the coinage for every 15 Sicca Rs. 16 New Company's Rupees were payable. The revenue assessed in respect of the 11 ferries was accordingly fixed at Company Rs. 4,800/-. The zamindars of Pargana Goas were before and after the permanent settlement in possession of the ferries and were receiving income by letting out the right to transport passengers and goods and were levying tolls on the ferries. Between the years 1857 and 1860 the ferries were, in exercise of the power conferred by Reg. VI of 1819, declared public ferries by the Government of Bengal, and the then zamindar was paid as compensation Rs. 53,923/4/6 being ten times the income received from the ferries in the year next after resumption of the ferries by the Government. The zamindar claimid abatement of revenue in respect of the ferries resumed by the Government, but no reply was given thereto, and according to the plaintiff under threat of coercive action the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest the court of Wards which was in management for a long time since the year 1860 and Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha were made to pay (Sicca) Rs. 4,500/- per annum as revenue in respect of the ferries even after the ferry rights had ceased to belong to the zamindar.

(3.) The plaintiff filed in 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad, the suit out of which this appeal arises. The suit was contested by the State of West Bengal on the pleas inter alia that the ferries resumed by the Government during the years 1857 to 1860 were not identical with the ferries described in the Rokhabandi papers of 1206 B. S. on which the plaintiff relied that in any event the ferries appertaining to Huda Alaipur did not form part of the assets of the estate bearing Tauzi No. 523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate and the assets of the ferries were never taken into account in assessing the revenue of the estate that in any case the liability to pay revenue of the ferries had not been separately assessed at (Sicca) Rs. 4,500/- that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and estoppel and that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In the opinion of the Trial Court the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation or by estoppel that the ferries described in the Rokhabandi papers of Huda Alaipur were identical with the ferries resumed by the Government during 1857 to 1860 that the assets of the ferries were included in Huda Alaipur which was one of the 12 Hudas included in Tauzi No. 523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate, that the revenue of the ferries had been separately assessed at (Sicca) Rs. 4,500/and that the plaintiff was entitled to abatement of revenue to the extent of (Sicca) Rs. 4,500/- i. e. Company Rs. 4,800/- The learned Judge accordingly decreed the plaintiff's suit.