Finality clauses in revenue law may not bar civil scrutiny of jurisdictional facts or liability to assessment.

A finality clause in revenue legislation does not necessarily bar Civil Court scrutiny of jurisdictional facts; its scope depends on whether the statute merely regulates assessment or also conclusively excludes inquiry into liability. The court considered competing views on Act IX of 1847: one view preserved civil scrutiny of whether Revenue Authorities had jurisdiction to assess re-formed land, while the other treated the Board's order as final on both liability and assessment. The judges also differed on whether land re-formed on the site of a permanently-settled estate was assessable as alluvial or derelict land. No clear majority outcome emerged on jurisdiction or assessability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Civil Court retained jurisdiction to inquire into the liability of re-formed land to assessment under Act IX of 1847; (ii) whether land re-formed on the site of a permanently-settled estate fell within the Act as land gained by alluvion or dereliction and was assessable by the Revenue Authorities.

Issue (i): Whether a Civil Court retained jurisdiction to inquire into the liability of re-formed land to assessment under Act IX of 1847.

Analysis: One view was that Act IX of 1847 abolished only the special machinery earlier provided by the Regulations, leaving the Civil Courts free to examine whether the Revenue Authorities had jurisdiction to assess in a given case. On that construction, the words making the Board's order final operated only after jurisdiction to assess existed, and did not exclude scrutiny of the jurisdictional basis itself. The contrary view was that the Act made the Revenue Authorities' order final on both liability and assessment, leaving no civil suit to reopen the matter except where jurisdiction was shown to be absent on the face of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The opinion allowing Civil Court scrutiny of jurisdiction was accepted by one judge, while the contrary opinion denied such power on the facts as found.

Issue (ii): Whether land re-formed on the site of a permanently-settled estate fell within the Act as land gained by alluvion or dereliction and was assessable by the Revenue Authorities.

Analysis: One view held that land re-formed on the old site of a permanently-settled estate did not become assessable merely because it reappeared after diluvion, because the substantive law protected land within the limits of the estate and the Revenue Authorities could not conclusively determine title against the Civil Courts. The contrary view treated the Act as authorising the Revenue Authorities to assess such land once the new survey map and proceedings showed an addition to the estate, with the Board's order final as to both liability and rate of assessment.

Conclusion: One judge held the land was not liable to assessment and that the decree for the plaintiffs should be restored, while the other held the Revenue Authorities had jurisdiction to assess and that no civil decree could declare their proceedings ultra vires.

Final Conclusion: The judges delivered conflicting opinions on both jurisdiction and assessability, so the judgment does not disclose a clear majority outcome on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A finality clause in revenue legislation does not necessarily exclude Civil Court scrutiny of jurisdictional facts, but the effect of such a clause depends on whether the statute confers only assessment power or also conclusively bars inquiry into liability.

---