Land Reform Act Does Not Apply to Permanently Settled Estate; Civil Court Affirms Jurisdiction

The court held that Act IX of 1847 does not apply to land reformed on a permanently settled estate and affirmed the Civil Court's jurisdiction to declare revenue authorities' actions as ultra vires. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and they were directed to cover the appeal costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Act IX of 1847 to land reformed on the site of a permanently settled estate.
2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to declare proceedings of revenue authorities as ultra vires if Act IX of 1847 is not applicable.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Act IX of 1847:
The first issue concerns whether the provisions of Act IX of 1847 apply to land reformed on the site of a permanently settled estate, where the estate's revenue has been paid without abatement since the permanent settlement. The judgment emphasizes that the Act of 1847 was intended merely to alter the machinery for assessing lands gained from the sea or rivers by alluvion or dereliction and not to subject any lands to assessment that would not have been liable under the law in force at the time the Act was passed. The legislation prior to 1847, including Regulation I of 1793 and Regulation II of 1819, clearly excluded lands within permanently settled estates from further assessment. The judgment concludes that lands within the limits of settled estates, which had become covered with water and later reformed, were not considered lands "gained from the river or sea by alluvion or dereliction" within the meaning of the legislation. Therefore, the first question is answered in the negative, indicating that Act IX of 1847 does not apply to such lands.

2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:
The second issue is whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the Board of Revenue and declare that the proceedings of the revenue authorities in assessing such land were ultra vires if the provisions of Act IX of 1847 are not applicable. The judgment clarifies that if the Civil Court has jurisdiction, it can be invoked as a matter of right, not discretion. The review of prior legislation, particularly Regulation II of 1819, assured proprietors of permanently settled estates the right to appeal to Civil Courts against any additional assessment attempts by revenue authorities. The judgment asserts that the action of the revenue authorities in assessing the land was wholly illegal and invalid. The provisions of Clause 31 of Regulation II of 1819, which allow proprietors to obtain immediate redress in Civil Courts, were not repealed or affected by the Act of 1847. Thus, the Civil Court retains jurisdiction to review and declare the proceedings of the revenue authorities as ultra vires. The judgment dismisses the appeal and upholds the right of the proprietors to seek redress in Civil Courts.

Conclusion:
The judgment concludes that Act IX of 1847 does not apply to land reformed on the site of a permanently settled estate, and the Civil Court has jurisdiction to declare the proceedings of the revenue authorities as ultra vires. The appeal is dismissed, and the appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

---