Civil Court review survives where revenue assessment exceeds statutory power over reformed land in a permanently settled estate.

Act IX of 1847 was construed as a machinery provision for assessing lands already liable to assessment, not as extending assessment power to reformed land within a permanently settled estate where full revenue had continued to be paid. Lands gained by alluvion or dereliction were treated as confined to changes occurring after settlement, so the phrase "land added to any estate" did not naturally cover such reformed land. The earlier Regulation of 1819 preserved civil-court recourse against unlawful revenue action, and that protection was not taken away by implication. Accordingly, the Civil Court retained jurisdiction to review the Board of Revenue's action, and the assessment proceedings were ultra vires.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Act IX of 1847 applied to reformed land situated on the site of a permanently settled estate on which the full revenue had continued to be paid. (ii) Whether, if the Act did not apply, the Civil Court could review the Board of Revenue's decision and declare the revenue proceedings ultra vires.

Issue (i): Whether Act IX of 1847 applied to reformed land situated on the site of a permanently settled estate on which the full revenue had continued to be paid.

Analysis: The Act of 1847 was construed as altering only the machinery for assessment of lands already liable to assessment under prior law. The earlier Regulations showed that lands within permanently settled estates were excluded from further assessment, while the references to lands gained by alluvion or dereliction were confined to lands gained since the period of settlement. The expression "land added to any estate" in the Act could not naturally include land that had belonged to a permanently settled estate, become covered by water, and later reformed.

Conclusion: The Act of 1847 did not apply to such reformed land, and the question was answered in the negative.

Issue (ii): Whether, if the Act did not apply, the Civil Court could review the Board of Revenue's decision and declare the revenue proceedings ultra vires.

Analysis: The earlier Regulation of 1819 expressly protected proprietors of permanently settled estates and allowed recourse to the Civil Court against unlawful revenue action. The later Act of 1847 was held not to repeal or destroy that protection by implication. Since the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to assess the land under the Act, their decision could not be made final so as to exclude civil review.

Conclusion: The Civil Court had jurisdiction, and the revenue proceedings were ultra vires and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the reformed land remained outside the assessment power claimed under the Act of 1847, and the proprietor retained the right to challenge the unlawful assessment in Civil Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A later assessment statute will not be construed to abrogate, by implication, the special protection and civil-court remedy previously guaranteed to proprietors of permanently settled estates unless such intention is expressed in clear terms.

---