BIRENDRA KISHORE MANIKYA BAHADUR Vs. DURGA SUNDARI CHOWDHURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of as many applications under S, 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of certain tenures which had been recorded in the finally published Record of Eights as bearing jamas which are enhanceable. The facts shortly stated are these: Pargana Dandra was held in two shares, viz., the 4-annas share and the 12-annas share. The 4-annas share was owned by one Mahomed Ali Chowdhury. Mahomed Ali Chowdhury was declared a rebel and his estate was confiscated by the Government in February 1793. There were in this estate before the escheat, 45 taluks, a nij taluk and some other lands. After the escheat the nij taluk was divided into 35 tapas. The Collector then made dowl settlement with the talukdars, and in the dowls that were taken only the rents were specified without specification of the area of land comprised in each taluk. For several years Government used to collect the rents by leasing out the zemindari in ijara, but subsequently the dues used to be realized from the talukdars and holders of the tapas. For some time malikana was paid to the heirs of Mahomed Ali Choudhury, but subsequently it was discontinued and it was said that the payment had been made tinder a mistake. In 1824 the tapas were surveyed and assessed at the rate of Rs. 3-6-0 per kani.

(2.) The 45 taluks were not assessed then and they retained the rents which they used to pay all along. In the meantime 12 annas share of the pargana was partitioned into four separate shares, two of which were subsequently sold for arrears of revenue in 1835 and were purchased by the Government. From time to time measurements were made of the lands of the taluk, but for one reason or other the jamas of these taluks were not interfered tvith. Considerable difficulty, however, was experienced in the management of the estate because whenever a dispute arose, as the areas were not specified, confusion was created by the uncertainty as to whether any particular land was included in the 4-annas estate of Mahomed Ali Choudhury or the other two shares out of the 12 annas which had been purchased by the Government or the remaining two shares. In 1845 the Eevenue Officers proceeded to measure all the lands of the taluk and the jama was assessed at Rs. 3-15-0 per kani. The talukdars were offered a deduction 1/3 of the jamas so assessed if they would agree to the jamabandi made as aforesaid, but they refused.

(3.) One of them instituted a suit to set aside his jamabandi. He was successful in the Court of the Munsif. The Government then preferred an appeal to the District Judge who appears to have partly upheld the decree of the Munsif. On a special appeal preferred to the Sader Dewany Adalat the decrees of the Courts below were set aside and the suit was dismissed on the ground that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Calcutta against the assessment made as aforesaid, but the assessment was upheld on the 6 June 1848. In July 1848 the final jamabandi was prepared and jamas were settled with the talukdars for 80 years from 1845 to 1874. The tapas were assessed again in 1848 and settled similarly as the taluks. Of the lakheraj mahals in the estate some were released; some were left unassessed; and some were resumed; and those that were resumed were assessed : some were assessed at half the rates of the tapas as being of a date prior to 1790 and others on full rates as tapas being of dates subsequent to 1790. In 1869 the estate consisting of the said 4-annas share was permanently settled with one Asima Banu and heir of the aforesaid Mahomed Ali Choudhury and with one Bharat Ghandra Deb who had purchased the interests of his other heirs. From them the plaintiff purchased the zemindari in 1880. Appeals Nos. 444, 475 and 486 relate to three of the taluks, and Appeal No. 479 relates to the lands of a resumed lakheraj tenure.