In the result, the appeal was dismissed.
II of 1876 were illegal.
274 of 1945 arising out of the decree dated the 17th March 1945 of the Court of Revenue Judge, Bombay in Suits Nos.
He accordingly granted a declaration that the appellant had numberright to levy assessment, and that the numberices issued by him under Act No.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated the 10th November 1948 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal from Original Decree No.
In April 1942 the appellant acting under the provisions of Bombay Act No.
VI of 1857.
7 and 23 of 1943.
Between 1864 and 1867 the Government acquired these lands for the purpose of the B.B. C.I. Railway under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act No.
On appeal by the defendants to the High Court of Bombay, it was held by Chagla, C.J., Bhagwati, J. companycurring, that Act No.
VI of 1851 imposed a specific limit on the right of the Government to levy assessments on the lands in question, that, further, by reason of the land acquisition proceedings the right of the Provincial Government to levy assessment even within the limits prescribed by Act No.
VI of 1851.
II of 1876, issued numberices to the respondents proposing to levy assessment on the lands at the rates mentioned therein, and calling for their representation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
74 of 1952.
In their plaints, they alleged that under the provisions of the Foras Act the maximum assessment leviable on the lands was 9 reas per burga, and that the Government had numberright to enhance it that the effect of the land acquisition proceedings between 1864 and 1867 was to extinguish the right of the State to levy even this assessment, and that further, having purchased the properties absolutely from the Governor General under Exhibit A. they were entitled to bold them without any liability to pay revenue thereon.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and Jamshedji Kanga,, R. J. Kolah and Rajinder Narain, with them , for the respondents.
II of 1876.
It was on the footing that the respondents were superior holders as defined in the Act, that the appellant issued numberices to them in April 1942.
In their reply, the respondents denied the right of the appellant to assess the lands to revenue, and followed it up by instituting two suits before the Revenue Judge for establishing their rights.
What these rights are, is a matter in companytroversy between the parties, and will be presently companysidered.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. The point for decision in this appeal is as to the liability of certain lands situated within the City of Bombay to be assessed to revenue under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act No.
On 22 11 1938 these lands, being numberlonger required for the purpose of the Railway, were sold by the Governor General to Lady Pochkhanawalla and others as joint tenants under a deed, Exhibit A. On 28 3 1939 the survivor of the purchasers under Exhibit A companyveyed the lands in trust under Exhibit B, and the respondents are the trustees appointed under that deed.
The appellant companytested the suit.
By another deed dated 20 12 1887 they released their right of reversion on two other parcels of land held by the Mission as tenants but subject to the payment of taxes, rates, charges, assessments leviable or chargeable in respect of the said premises or anything for the time being thereon.
On 16 1 1888 the Mission sold all the three parcels to one Janardan Gopal, and the Secretary of State joined in the companyveyance for effectually releasing the reversion of the Government.
VI of 1851 was extinguished, and that when the lands were transferred by the Central Government to Lady Pochkhanawalla and others, they got them as revenue free lands.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India Porus A. Mehta, with him , for the appellant.
February 28.
VI of 1851, called the Foras Act.
This appeal by special leave is directed against this decision.
These lands were originally known as Foras lands, and the rights of the occupants of 1313 those lands were settled by Bombay Act No.
They accordingly prayed for a declaration that the Government had numberright to levy any assessment on these lands, or, in the alternative, that such assessment should number exceed what was payable under Bombay Act No.
