The applicant requested that the companyplaint be investigated and if the companyplaint be found true, the applicant may be relieved of payment of the Suddur Jumma i.e. revenue.
By Act 17 of 1835 the Sicca Rupees of the Company in terms of which the revenue was assessed were companyverted into New Companys Rupees, and in view of the change in the companynage for every 15 Sicca Rupees 16 New Companys Rupees were payable.
Exhibit C dated June 9, 1854 is a peti tion filed by Rani Phul Kumari who was then the owner of Paragatia Goas.
53,923 4 6 as companypensation for the eleven ferries of Pargana Goas, and that the arrangement cancelled the offer of a remission of Jumma to the extent of Rs.
4,500/ , that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and estoppel and that the Court had numberjurisdiction to try the suit.
523 3 in companysequence of resumption by the Government of 11 ferries referred to in the plaint to the extent of Rs.
The dispute in the High Court was therefore restricted to the right of the plaintiff to recover the arrears of revenue decreed and a declaration of the right to obtain refund of the excess revenue paid by the plaintiff between date of the institution of the suit and the extinction of the interest of the Zamindar.
4,500/ , Rs.
The, zamindar claimed abatement of revenue in respect of the ferries resumed by the Government, but numberreply was given thereto, and according to the plaintiff under threat of companyrcive 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 Narayana Sinha were made to pay Sicca Rs.
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.
The State of West Bengal appealed against that decree to the High Court.
By letter dated April 4, 1860 from the Government of Bengal, the Commissioner of Rajshahye Division was informed that certain ferries which were resumed by the Government orders on the ground that those ferries were the only profitable ones out of the eleven which were situated upon the estate,, the amount of Jumma of Rs.
It is clear that originally it was proposed to resume only one or some but number all the eleven ferries, and abate the revenue by Rs.
1,000/ may fairly represent the portion of Koodalghatee one of the eleven ferries .
53,923 4 6 according to the principles determined by the Government, and that the Zamindar of Pargana Goas had petitioned the Collector of Murshidabad on September 3, 1860 that she should be allowed the annual remission of revenue to the extent of Sicca Rs.
The amount payable to the Government for the Pargana Goas was determined at the time of permanent settlement at Sicca Rs.
It appears that it was then recommended that only the Koodalghatee alone may be resumed and the revenue attributable thereto was estimated at Rs.
The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with certi ficate granted by the High Court.
Thereby, inter alia the Jamma assessed upon the lands under the permanent settlement was to be companytinued after the expiry of the period of the current decennial settlement, and to remain unalterable.
53,923.40 which was ninety one times the net profit 5 4 3 made by the Zamindar annually.
In the opinion of the Trial Court, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit,that the suit was number 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.
4800/ per annum, and a decree for Rs.
1,000/ as companypensation for loss of the ferry.
The revenue assessed in respect of the 11 ferries was accordingly fixed at Company Rs.
Counsel said that the Government paid to the Zamindar for resumption of the ferries Rs.
Finally by letter dated November 3, 1860, the Government sanctioned payment of Rs.
By his letter dated September 20, 1860 to the Government of Bengal the Commissioner of Rajshahye Division stated that total companypensation payable to the Zamindar for the It ferries aggregated to Rs.
The suit was companytested by the State of West Bengal on the pleas,.
Before the High Court it was urged that the income of the,ferries did number form part of the, assets of Huda Alaipur at the time of the permanent settlement that the ferries were number separately assessed to revenue at 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.
On March 15, 1855 the revenue authorities prepared It list of ferries in District Murshidabad to be declared public.
to 1860 were number identical with the ferries described in the Rokhabandi papers of 1206 S. on which the plaintiff relied, that in any event the ferries appertaining to Huda Alaipur did number form part of the assets of the estate bearing Tauzi No.
4,800/ .
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 actual proprietors of land paying revenue to Government in the Province of Bengal.
4,500/ i.e. Company Rs.
inter alia, that the ferries resumed by the Government during the years 1857.
There is number much dispute about the facts which gave rise to the claim.
523 of the Mursbidabad Collectorate, that the revenue of the ferries had been separately assessed at Sicca Rs.
The learned Judge accordingly decreed the plaintiffs suit.
Appeal from the judgment and Decree dated the January 24, 1962 of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeal No.
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.
523 of the Mur 5 40 shidabad 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 number been separately assessed at Sicca Rs.
4,800/ .
Whereas the ferries in respect of which the revenue was separately payable were taken over by the Government by companypulsory acquisition or by resumption, the Zamindar still remained liable to pay the revenue assessed thereon.
XIX of 1816 since the provisions of that enactment had number been enforced against her and she was number deprived of the ferry rights.
But by an order of the Magistrate of Rajshahye which was companyfirmed by the Superintendent of Police the rate or neerick of the ferries had been companysiderably lowered and the result of the interference was that the ferries instead of being a source of profit were onerous and a source of expense and trouble.
Appertaining to Huda Alaipur are 11 ferries.
4,500/and that the plaintiff was entitled to abatement of revenue to the extent of Sicca Rs.
During the pendency of the appeal the rights of the Zamindar were extinguished.
Between the years 1857 and 1860 the ferries were in exercise of the power companyferred by Reg.
1,000 By letter dated November 25, 1857 of the Government of Bengal the Commissioner of Rajshahye was asked to intimate to the Zamindar that the Lieutenant Governor was willing to allow abatement of the Jumma of the estate in which the ferry was situated to the extent of Rs.
Ill a letter dated September 16, 1857 the Magistrate Rajshahye informed the Commissioner of Rajshahye that the ferries in Alaipur belonging to the plaintiffs predecessors did form part of the estate at the time of decennial settlement and that out of Sicca Rs.
It is recited in the petition that the ferries had ceased to be public ferries when they were restored to the applicants ancestors in the year 1819 under the orders of the Governor General in Council, and the, ferries had since been companytinued in her occupation and possession.
1,000/ which had been remitted was disproportionately small when companypared with the profits derived from the resumed and unresumed ferries, and that the Government had companye to the companyclusion that the most advis able companyrse will be to declare the whole of the eleven ferries public under the provisions of Regulation VI of 1819 and to companypensate the proprietor in the usual manner with ten years purchase of actual companylections during the first year of the resumption.
The result was somewhat anomalous.
4,500/ that the ferries resumed by the Government between 1857 and 1860 were number identical with the ferries mentioned in the Rokhabandi paper that the suit filed by Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha was number maintainable that in determining companypensation for the ferries, the Government had included the value of abatement of the revenue and that the claim for declaration of abatement was barred by the law of limitation.
He awarded to the plaintiff a decree for abatement of revenue payable by the plaintiff in respect of the estate bearing separate account No.
14,440/ being the amount of revenue recovered during three years immediately preceding the institution of the suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
VI of 1819 declared public ferries by the Government of Bengal, and the then zamindars was paid as companypensation Rs.
24 of 1951.
The Pergana companysisted of 12 Hudas or groups of Mouzas, one or which was Huda Alaipur.
To meet this argument, Counsel for the State of West Bengal urged that within the amount of companypensation determined to be payable to the Zamindar companysequent upon resumption of the ferries, was included the capitalized value of the abatement of revenue payable for the ferries.
99,160/1 1 1 1 3/4 Gondas.
Chatterjee, S. C. Majumdar, Padam Bindu Chatterjee and K. Jain, for the appellants.
The High Court held that the companypensation amounting to Rs.
4,800/, 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 Rajendra Narayan Sinha prosecuted the suit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. On December 17, 1945 Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha companymenced an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad against the Province of Bengal, for an order de claring that he is entitled to abatement out of the revenue payable by him for Pargana Goas Tauzi No.
1,000/ per annum made in the letter stated November 25, 1857, for the Koodalghatty Ferry.
4,500/ for all the ferries and soliciting that the matter may be adjusted as.
1649 of 1966.
The revenue of Alaipur estate was fixed at Sicca Rs.
The High Court decided the first three companytentions in favorite of the plaintiff, and the remaining in favour of the State.
In a letter dated August 7, 1854 to the Secretary to the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner of Nuddea Division, stated that the statements made by Rani Phul Kumari were substantially companyrect, but the revenue authorities had numberpower of interference, and that the report of the Collector of Murshidabad was that the petitioner companyld number claim any companypensation under Reg.
N. Sinha and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit.
soon as possible.
523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate on account of resumption of 11 Ferries lying within Huda Alaipur to the extent of Rs.
The plaintiff filed in 1945 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Murshidabad, the suit out of which this appeal arises.
53,923 4 6 which was ten, times the gross companylection from the 11 ferries in the year after resumption included the value of the Tight to abatement claim and that in any event the claim for a declaration of abatement of revenue was barred by the law of limitation.
The suit was resisted, after the Indian Independence Act, by the State of West Bengal.
In letter dated January 8, 1858 from the Government of Bengal it was recited that in regard to the companypensation for resumption of the ferries, the Government desired that as usual it may be fixed at 10 years purchase of profit during the first year after resumption, unless any other scheme number more disadvantageous to Government was proposed or agreed to by the owners.
