ASUTOSH CHAKRABARTY Vs. DWARIKANATH MATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that an island formed in the Dhaleswari river, in the District of Khulna, to which the provisions of Bengal Act IV of 1868 would seem to have been applicable. Possession of the island was taken by the Government, and in the year 1903 the island was settled with the plaintiffs for a period of five years expiring on the 31 March 1907, as Chur Sonaknr, bearing Touzi No. 1020. This temporary settlement was continued for another period of five years ending on the 31 March 1912. The Revenue Authorities then decided that there should be, a fresh assessment of revenue. The estate was, therefore, re-settled for one year only with the plaintiffs, and proceedings were taken under Regulation VII of 1822 to re-assess the revenue. The result was, that the estate was settled with the plaintiffs for a term of five years commencing on the 1 April 1913 at an annual revenue of Rs. 674, the previous revenue having been Rs. 178.

(2.) In 1917 the plaintiffs instituted four suits for rent which have given rise to the second appeals now before us. The Courts below concurred in dismissing these suits on the ground that the Revenue Authorities were not at liberty to proceed under Regulation VII of 1822, but were bound to proceed under Act IX of 1847. As to that Act, the lower Appellate Court was of opinion that it was not open to the Revenue Authorities to apply its provisions because ten years had not elapsed from the date of the last previous Survey thereunder. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have assumed without finding, that a Survey of the land had been made under the Act before the second Settlement of 1907. But, apart from that, I should have thought, though I do not decide the point in these appeals, that in the circumstances the Act of 1847 had no application and that in the case of a temporarily settled estate such as this, it would always be open to the Revenue Authorities to re-assess the revenue and re- settle the estate with effect from the expiry of a previous term of Settlement.

(3.) Here, however, the Revenue Authorities not only re-assessed the revenue and made a new Reyenue Settlement of the estate, they also purported to settle the rents payable by the defendants, and these suits are for arrears of rent at the rates thus settled. The question, therefore, arises whether the defendants are under a legal liability to pay rent at those rates.