Case: Ranendra Narayan Sinha &amp; Ors Vs. State Of West Bengal

near the Sadr Stations of the several Magistrates or Joint Magistrates, or such as may intersect the chief military routes or other much frequented roads or such as from special considerations it may appear advisable to place under the more immediate management of the Magistrates and Joint Magistrates.Second. The Government reserves to itself the power of determining from time to time what ferries shall be under the preceding rule be deemed public ferries and as such shall be subject to the immediate control of the Magistrates and Joint Magistratesx x x xThird. It will be the duty of the several Magistrates and Joint Magistrates to prepare lists of the ferries which in their judgment should under the foregoing rules be considered to be public ferries, and transmit them as soon as prepared through the Superintendents of Police for the information and orders of Government."Clause IV dealt with the power of appointing proper persons to the charge of the public ferries, for the purpose of regulating the number and description of boats to be maintained for preventing executions and generally for promoting the efficiency of the Police and the safety and convenience of the community. Clause VI declared that the exclusive right to ply public ferries shall belong to Government and no version shall be allowed to employ a ferry boat plying for hire without the previous sanction of the Magistrate. The other clauses dealt with the procedure and powers of the Magistrate with regard to public ferries. This Regulation dealt with the power of the Government of Bengal to declare a particular ferry to be a public ferry and to manage it. There is nothing in the Regulation which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter of revenue qua a private ferry resumed or acquired.20. Regulation VI of 1819 was repealed by Act 1 of 1866. By Section 2 of Act 1 of 1866 it was provided that every ferry which has been or may be declared to be a public ferry under the provisions of Regulation VI of 1819 shall belong exclusively to the Government. By Section 4 it was provided that all claims for compensation which may be preferred by any person or persons for loss which may be sustained by them in consequence of any ferry having been declared public, as aforesaid shall be inquired into by such Magistrate, who shall award compensation to any such person or persons who may appear justly entitled thereto. But Act 1 of 1866 has no application because the ferries of plaintiffs predecessor were resumed by the Government between the years 1857 and 1860. In any case there is nothing to show in any of the provisions to which our attention. was invited that a suit for abatement of revenue for resumption of the ferries is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.21. In Secretary of State for India in Council v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh Bahadur. (1936) ILR 15 Pat 246 = (AIR 1936 Pat 87 ) on which Counsel for the State relied it was held by the High Court of Patna that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by implication in respect of a suit filed on the ground that compensation awarded was inadequate and was based on wrong principle. That case has, in our judgment no bearing in the present case. The method for determining the compensation is provided by Act 1 of 1885 and the Civil Courts jurisdiction to determine compensation pro tanto may be deemed excluded.22. Reliance was also placed upon Rule 159 in the Bengal Tauzi Manual, 1940, which contains rules for the collection of and accounting for land revenue and cesses in Bengal. Rule159 insofar as it is relevant. provided:"The power of sanctioning abatement of the revenue or rent demand of an estate during the currency of a settlement will be exercised by Collectors, Commissioners, and the Board of Revenue as shown below:-x x x x"The diverse clauses of Rule 159 vested power in different classes of officers to sanction abatement of rent or revenue. For instance, the Collector had power to sanction abatement of rent or revenue up to a total of Rs. 1,500/- in a single year in all estates managed direct by the Provincial Government: the Commissioner had power to sanction abatement of revenue upto Rs. 5,000/-. Again the Collector had power to sanction abatement of revenue in temporarily-settled estates bearing a revenue not exceeding Rs. 500/-. It was also stated that the Collector had power to sanction in all estates abatements in consequence of the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894, and the Board of Revenue alone had power to sanction abatements due to diluvion ascertained after a survey conducted under Act IX of 1847. The Board alone had power to sanction abatement of rent or revenue in other cases not specified in Rule 159. The Bengal Tauzi Manual, 1940 does not disclose the authority under which it was published, and the sanction behind the rules. The Board of Revenue from time to time published instructions relating to the administration of revenue laws. The rules and instructions set out in the Manual are apparently not statutory. Even as summing that they are statutory there is nothing to indicate that they exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters relating to abatement of revenue in the civil suits and as rightly conceded by counsel for the State of West Bengal, there is no evidence that any such Rule like Rule 159 was in operation at the time when the ferries belonging to the Zamindar were resumed or acquired by the Government of the Province of Bengal.23. S. K. Sen. J., was, in our judgment, in error in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to enterain the claim for abatement of revenue and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not liable to pay revenue in respect of the ferries which were resumed by the Government.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Two matters appear clear on the findings of the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court: (1) that the revenue in respect of the 11 ferries was separately assessed; and (2) that the right to ferry was recognised as a right to property for resumption of which the Government of the day was liable to pay compensation. The ferries were appurtenant to the lands of the Zamindar each ferry being a connecting link between two highways on the lands of the plaintiffs predecessors. The right to the ferries was resumed by the Government in exercise of the power conferred by Regulation VI of 1819 and the right of the Zamindar to receive compensation for loss of the ferry right was conceded. But on the resumption of the ferries no abatement of revenue payable in respect of the ferries was granted. The result was somewhat anomalous.Whereas the ferries in respect of which the revenue was separately payable were taken over by the Government by compulsory acquisition or by resumption, the Zamindar still remained liable to pay the revenue assessed thereon.argument that a larger compensation was paid and on that account the plaintiff was not entitled to abatement of revenue appealed to the High Court. But, in our judgment the record of the case does not support the conclusion reached by the High Court.It is clear that originally it was proposed to resume only one or some but not all the eleven ferries, and abate the revenue by Rs.Later it was decided to resume all the ferries in Huda Alaipur and to pay compensation at ten times the amount of profit determined "on the basis of one years working of the ferries" after they were takenthe argument proceeds upon several assumptions which are not supported by evidencc. There is no evidence that the plaintiffs predecessors were making only Rs. 5,392/gross (income) out of the ferries. It cannot be assumed that because the Government collected from the 11 ferries Rs. 5,392/in the first year after the ferries were taken over and the Zamindar was liable to pay Rs. 4,800/only.15. There is nothing in the correspondence to indicate that any part of the compensation was to include the capitalised value for abatement of revenue. The ferries were regarded as assets belonging to the Zamindari and were separately assessed to revenue. It was but just that the revenue assessed upon the ferries should, to the extent of resumption or acquisition of ferries, be abated. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the Government took into account the value of abatement of revenue and the Zamindar agreed to receive compensation, agreeing still to pay the revenue in respect of the ferries resumed, the conclusion inevitably follows that on the resumption or acquisition of the ferries the Zamindar ceased to be liable to pay the annual revenue assessed upon the ferries.16. There is no evidence of a written claim made by the Zamindar for abatement of revenue since 1860, and we are unable to infer from that circumstance anything adverse to the plaintiff. For many years, the Pargana was in the possession of the Court of Wards and it is the case of the plaintiff that from time to time requests were made for abatement of revenue, but no relief was given and the revenue including the revenue from the ferries was recovered from the Zamindar under threat of coercive process. No inference from the delay in making a claim for abatement of revenue arises.17. The High Court was of the view that the claim made by the plaintiff was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff was claiming in this suit the amount of revenue recovered from him in excess of the amount lawfully due from him and he claimed a declaration that the revenue stood abated. Right to collect revenue which is not due cannot be acquired by prescription, and if the plaintiff had been compelled to pay sums of money which he was not liable to pay the claim could properly be made within three years from the date on which the payment was made. The Trial Court was, in our judgment, right in holding that an amount of Rs. 14,440/was properly recoverable. The Trial Court was also right in declaring that there was complete extinction of liability to pay revenue in respect of the 11 ferries. To the claim for declaration of the right to abatement there is, in our judgment, no bar of limitation. Each demand for recovery by the Government confers a fresh cause of action. In any event, there is nothing on the record which suggests that the claim for abatement was refused, before theis undisputed that there is no express bar under any of the statutes to the maintainability of the present suit, nor is our attention invited to any provisions of law or circumstances which may justify an inference to that effect.There is nothing in the Regulation which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in the matter of revenue qua a private ferry resumed orcase has, in our judgment no bearing in the present case. The method for determining the compensation is provided by Act 1 of 1885 and the Civil Courts jurisdiction to determine compensation pro tanto may be deemed excluded.The rules and instructions set out in the Manual are apparently not statutory. Even as summing that they are statutory there is nothing to indicate that they exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in respect of matters relating to abatement of revenue in the civil suits and as rightly conceded by counsel for the State of West Bengal, there is no evidence that any such Rule like Rule 159 was in operation at the time when the ferries belonging to the Zamindar were resumed or acquired by the Government of the Province of Bengal.23. S. K. Sen. J., was, in our judgment, in error in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to enterain the claim for abatement of revenue and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not liable to pay revenue in respect of the ferries which were resumed by the Government.