SRI RAM CHANDRA NAIK KALYA Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five connected appeals brought by a plaintiff against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff which was for assessment of rant and in the alternative for assessment of the share of Government revenue on the plots held by the defendants who were entered as muafidars. The lower Courts have also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It was claimed by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, that his case came under Section 156, Act 2 of 1901. Section 150 lays down that the proprietor of a mahal or part of a mahal may sue to resume possession of on have rent assessed on any lands situated in such mahal or part of a mahal purporting to be held rent free or to have the holder thereof declared to be liable to pay revenue on it. Section 154 lays down the cases in which land held rent free is 1930 A 45 & 46 liable to resumption. Section 158 lays down the case of land which is not liable to resumption under Section 151 and which has been held rent free for fifty years and by two successors to the original grantee... Section 156 lays down that land not liable to resumption under Section 154 and to which the provisions of Section 158 do not apply, shall be liable to assessment of rent.

(2.) It is claimed by the learned counsel that Secs.154 and 158 do not apply and therefore that rent should be assessed; under Section 156. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that Section 158 does apply because the land has been held rent free for more than fifty years and by two successors to the original grantee Accordingly, under that section the land shall be deemed to be held in proprietary right. That section continues: and the Court shall declare the holder o such land to be the proprietor thereof, and to be liable to pay the revenue thereon, and shall determine the revenue payable by him.

(3.) This section enables a Court to assess revenue if there is revenue payable on the land in question. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the provisions of Section 58, Land Revenue Act, to the effect that revenue might be assessed on this land, but the question before us is not whether revenue might be assessed at some future date on this land but whether there is in fact revenue assessed on the land at present The finding of the lower appellate. Court is that there is no revenue at present assessed on this land.