Revenue jurisdiction bar and unenforceable land-use agreement upheld after unauthorised alterations defeated contractual assessment terms.

Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 bars a civil suit not only against the assessment itself but also against a contractual claim that would prevent recovery of land revenue otherwise lawfully leviable; a suit asserting a right to pay less under an agreement was therefore excluded. Agreements made under Sections 65 and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 were treated as conditional on the assessed subject-matter remaining identifiable, and the 1915 agreement became unenforceable after unauthorised demolition, reconstruction and extensions altered the property beyond the agreed mode of assessment. The Governor in Council's order under Section 211 was accordingly within power and could be relied on to levy assessment at the full standard rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was excluded by Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 in a suit challenging assessment levied under the agreements and the Government order. (ii) Whether the Governor in Council's order under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 cancelling or superseding the agreements and directing levy at the full standard rate was ultra vires and whether the 1915 agreement remained enforceable after unauthorised alterations and extensions to the land.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was excluded by Section 4(b) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 in a suit challenging assessment levied under the agreements and the Government order.

Analysis: The expression in Section 4(b) was held to cover not only direct objections to the amount or incidence of land revenue, but also claims founded on agreements which, if accepted, would prevent the Government from recovering the assessment otherwise lawfully leviable. The Court rejected the narrower construction that would confine the bar to objections directed only at the assessment itself in isolation. A suit asserting a contractual right to pay less than the assessment otherwise authorised by law was treated as an objection to the amount or incidence of assessment within the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The civil court's jurisdiction was excluded by Section 4(b).

Issue (ii): Whether the Governor in Council's order under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 cancelling or superseding the agreements and directing levy at the full standard rate was ultra vires and whether the 1915 agreement remained enforceable after unauthorised alterations and extensions to the land.

Analysis: The agreements were made under Sections 65 and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, under which permission for non-agricultural use could be granted on terms and conditions. The 1906 agreement was superseded by the 1915 agreement, and the respondent thereafter made substantial unauthorised demolition, reconstruction, and extensions so that the original unit of assessment could no longer be identified. The Court held that the 1915 agreement had become incapable of application and was therefore useless and unenforceable. In that situation, the Governor in Council's order merely recognised the legal position and was within the power conferred by Section 211 to modify, annul, or reverse subordinate orders.

Conclusion: The Governor in Council's order was not ultra vires and the 1915 agreement could not be relied upon to resist levy of assessment at the full standard rate.

Final Conclusion: The suit was not maintainable in the civil court, and the contractual basis on which the respondent claimed relief had failed because the operative agreement had been rendered unenforceable by the respondent's own unauthorised alterations.

Ratio Decidendi: A suit founded on an agreement regulating land-revenue assessment is barred by Section 4(b) where it seeks to prevent recovery of assessment otherwise authorised by law, and an agreement made under Sections 65 and 67 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 becomes unenforceable when unauthorised alterations so change the assessed subject-matter that the agreed mode of assessment can no longer be applied.

---