TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1949 (3) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... data. The regulation was therefore passed to enable the Collector and revenue authorities to find out the actual rents received by the landlords and when it was not easy to ascertain the same to find out what was the customary rent in the locality. This appears to have been considered the proper data on which the revenue payable to Government could be more equitably fixed, Beading the Regulation as a whole, I do not think it empowers the Collector, when he finds a certain amount paid actually as rent, to fix either a higher or a lower rent. His duty was merely to ascertain and not to fix any fair or equitable rent, Such construction put on the wording of S. 9 of Regulation VII [7] of 1822 in Ishur Chandra Sarkar v. Troylukhya Nath 17 C.W.N. 865 and Jagindra Nath Roy v. Mohendra Nath Mozumdar A.I.R. (6) 1919 Cal. 321, is correct. Act XXXI [31] of 1858 is limited to alluvial lands and in Section 2 thereof the word "determine" is used. As those lands came into existence for the first time, there could not be any previous rents in respect thereof. The word "determine" is, under the circumstances, appropriate to be used, although it does not empower the Collector to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such an entry could be challenged either by the plaintiff filing a suit or by the defendant by way of defence, I do not think the words used in the section limit the right to challenge the entry only to the plaintiff. The section does not exclude the right of a defendant by way of defence to contest the accuracy of the entry. The effect of an entry made under Act XXXI [31] of 1858 is not higher. It has the same probative value as an entry made under Regulation VII [7] of 1822. 5. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, it was open to the appellants to challenge the correctness of the entry and its binding nature on them in the suit filed by the respondent to recover rent from them. I find nothing in Regulation VII [7] of 1822 or Act XXXI [31] of 1858 to prevent such defence being raised. It may be noticed that while the accuracy or binding nature of such an entry is contemplated to be contested in a regular suit, unlike provisions found in other Acts in similar circumstances, no provision prescribing a time within which such a suit has to be brought, is found in the Regulation. That supports the view that these objections could be raised by way of defence also. 6. In my opinion, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judicature, it being understood and declared that all decisions on the demands of the zamindars shall hereafter be regulated by the rates of rent and modes of payment avowed and ascertained at the settlement, and recorded in the Collector's proceedings until distinctly altered by mutual agreement or after full investigation in a regular suit. By virtue of this provision, the record of the Collector must be taken to be prima facie correct, and the Courts of law are bound to act upon it till it is altered or held to be incorrect; but the correctness or propriety of an entry in the record can be challenged by means of a regular suit. That being so, it is open to the appellant in the present case to challenge the correctness of the entry as to rent of the land with which we are concerned in the present suit. I am not prepared to hold that the present suit is not a regular suit, merely because it is a suit for rent. I agree with the view expressed by Mukherjea J., that the expression "regular suit" as used in Regulation VII [7] of 1822 means a suit which is not to be decided summarily but is to be decided by a competent civil Court according to the procedure applicable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere initiated by the Diara Officer (as the officer concerned with the settlement of such land is called), District 24-Par-ganas, for the settlement of the new accretion, among other lands similarly formed in the District, and a notification (Ex. II) was issued under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (IX [9] of 1847) to all the landlords and tenants having interest in such lands that new alluvial increments were liable to assessment for Government revenue under Section 3, Bengal Regulation, II [2] of 1819 and that the rent of all under tenures in such lands is under Section 2, Bengal Act XXXI [31] of 1858 or under Section 104 of the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII [8] of 1885) liable to determination. Objections, if any, were to be presented on or before a specified date, but no objection having been raised on behalf of the company, the Diara Officer made his final report on 22nd January 1932 whereby the new accretion was settled with the respondent as a separate estate for a term of 15 years on the basis of the rental assets assessed by him. These included a sum of ₹ 495 per annum determined as the rent payable by the appellant in respect of the land here in question at the rate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Tenancy Act was applicable to non-agricultural tenancies as well and that its application to this case was not excluded by reason of the patta comprising asli lands also. Therefore, even if the Revenue Officer disregarded the patta, his decision would bind the appellant, as it had not been set aside in a regular suit brought for the purpose. The general effect of their judgment will be found in the following passage: If the tenant's contention be that the patta could not be superseded or touched at all, it was for the tenant to rely on it before the Revenue Officer. Notification Ex. 2 was duly served on the respondents and they had ample opportunity to raise the point. If the respondents were aggrieved by the determination of rent by the Revenue Officer, they had the right to appeal before the Board. They had also the right to raise the question by a regular suit. This they did not do. At one stage of the hearing we thought that it might be possible to stay these proceedings on the respondents now filing a suit to get the decision of the Revenue Officer set aside. Even taking the institution of the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, as the starting point of limit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y countervailing proof in a regular suit. 15. The governing provisions are those of Act XXXI [81] of 1858 which, as its title shows, were passed to make "further provision for the settlement of land gained by alluvion in Bengal." By Section 1, the Act provides for the settlement of lands gained by alluvion either by assessing the revenue payable thereon and adding it to the juma of the original estate where the proprietor agrees to such a course, or, if he objects to such an arrangement, by assessing and settling the lands as a separate estate with a separate juma. Section 2 is important and reads as follows: 2. Nothing contained in the preceding section shall affect the rights of any under-tenant in any alluvial land under the provisions of Clause 1, Section 4, Regulation XI, 1825. It shall be the duty of all officers making settlements of such land, whether the land be settled separately or incorporated with the original estate, to ascertain and record all such rights, according to the rules prescribed in Regulation VII, 1922, and to determine whether any and what additional rent shall be payable in respect of the alluvial land by the person or persons entitled to any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of the Regulation, as its title shows, is to declare principles according to which the settlement of revenue was to be made in certain territories which had recently come under the control of the East India Company. It would appear that the Board of Directors were contemplating the introduction of permanent settlement in these territories and for that purpose they required the fullest information regarding the internal conditions of the country, such as the extent of cultivated and cultivable lands, local tenures and usages, rates of rent and the modes of their collection and distribution, etc. (see Field's Introduction to the Bengal Code, para. 42). Accordingly, the Regulation by its title declared one of its objects to be defining, settling and recording the rights and obligations of the various classes and persons possessing an interest in the land or in the rent or produce thereof. This, to my mind, is a clear enough indication that the statute contemplates the "settlement" of rents either as being the "right" of the landlord or the "obligation" of the tenant for they are undoubtedly persons "possessing an interest in the land or in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereafter by the Courts of judicature, it being understood and declared that all decisions on the demands of the zamindars shall hereafter be regulated by the rates of rent and modes of payment avowed and ascertained at the settlement and recorded in the Collector's proceedings until distinctly altered by mutual agreement or after full investigation in a regular suit. Great stress was laid by Mr. Banerjee on the words "ascertaining and recording" and "information collected" as supporting the view that the scope of the investigation under Section 9 did not extend beyond finding out and recording things as they existed. "Ascertaining" or "collecting information" are not technical or specialised words and I fail to see why they should exclude the idea of determination or settlement of proper rent. In those early days when internal conditions were more or less unsettled, "ascertaining," as Mr. Field remarks, "too often involved determining what was indeterminate." Nor is the phrase "information collected and recorded" in any way inconsistent with such information consisting of things settled or determined by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should be chiefly directed." Furthermore, if the Settlement Officer's record were only to contain entries of rents which were being actually paid by the tenants, there would be no need for enacting a rule of presumption as to the correctness of such cntries and providing for a right of challenge in a regular suit. Neither the tenant who in that case would continue to pay the same rent as before, nor the zamindar who was till then content to receive that rent, would think of questioning the correctness of the Settlement Officer's record in such circumstances. On the other hand, would it not be reasonable to infer that this provision was made because the officer was given the power to settle rents, altering them where necessary, and the exercise of such power might give rise to disputes ? These considerations seem to me to afford cogent reasons for rejecting the view that the Settlement Officer acting under S. 9 of Regulation VII [7] of 1822 had power only to find out and record the existing rates of rent. I have already endeavoured to show that expressions used in different places in the regulation are also apt to support the wider construction. 20. Reference was made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....might have been regarding the manner in which the power of enhancement had been exercised, did not seek to remove any doubt as to the existence of such power which was assumed. This Act was re-pealed next year by Act, X [10] of 1879 which by Section 4 provided that the limitations and conditions imposed on the power of enhancement of rent by Rules 13, 14 and 17 of Act X [10] of 1858 shall not affect any settlement proceedings under Regulation VII, [7] of 1822. Thus, the later legislative enactments, so far from supporting a restrictive construction as to the scope and extent of the powers of the settlement officer, would seem to accept the position that the officer had the power, under the regulation, of enhancing the rents payable by the tenants. 22. As regards the decisions referred to above, it is interesting to find that in the earlier cases the learned Judges, while holding that the enhanced rate recorded by the settlement officer under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 could not be enforced against the tenant unless he had assented to such enhancement, based their decision not on the lack of power in the officer to settle or enhance rents but on the non observance of the conditions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expressions used in different parts of the regulation. Jenkins C.J. in a brief judgment contented himself with the remark that as the proceedings were under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 and not under the tenancy Act, the defendant was not bound by the enhancement of rent in the absence of his assent, which was also the ratio decidendi in the earlier cases. The view of Mullick J., however, was adopted in the subsequent decisions without further examination of the subject until the learned Judges in the present case, reconsidered the point and reviewed the decisions, but in my opinion, went too far in the other direction in holding that the settlement of rent under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 had the same consequence us a settlement under the Bengal Tenancy Act. 23. It was next argued that, even if the settlement officer was authorised to settle additional rents payable by under-tenants in an estate it was only for the purpose of assessing the estate to Government revenue and that such settlement could not create any obligation binding on the tenant to pay the rent. The decision in Dhirendra Ch. Rao and Ors. v. Nawab Khaja Habibullah and Ors. A.I.R. (12) 1925 Cal. 758, to which our att....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught elsewhere. The learned Judges apparently thought that the source was to be found in the last paragraph of Clause (1) of Section 4 of Regulation XI [11] of 1825, and that paragraph having been repealed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, the determination by the Settlement Officer under Section 2 of Act XXXI [31] of 1858 was considered ineffectual by itself to "fasten liability" on the under-tenant, and to have no significance except for the purpose of assessment of revenue. This view overlooks that the provision in Regulation XI [11] of 1825 referred to above did not purport to impose any liability. It is a proviso to the earlier provision in the clause that land gained by alluvion shall be considered an increment to the tenure of the person to whose land it was annexed, and it states that such person shall not be considered "exempt from the payment of any increase of rent to which he may be justly liable" by his "engagements" or by "established usage." In other words, it merely saves pre-existing liabilities founded on contract, express or implied, or on custom. The repeal of this proviso could not therefore, affect the position as regards the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... preamble declares inter alia, that: it is the desire of Government that the proceedings held and the records formed by the Collectors when making settlements or otherwise specially employed in conducting enquiries of the above nature should be such as that all demands, claims and suits may be adjudicated and determined according to the facts therein stated until the same shall have been formally altered or it shall be shown by the result of a full investigation in a regular suit that the proceeding or record of the Collector was erroneous or incomplete. The concluding portion of Clause (1) of S. 9 gives effect to this desire by enacting the provision quoted above as to the demands of the zamindars being regulated by the rates of rent and modes of payment recorded in the Collector's proceedings "until distinctly altered by mutual agreement or after full investigation in a regular suit," i. e., a suit not governed by summary proceedings. It was argued by Mr. Chakravarty on behalf of the respondent that this provision meant that the rates of rent recorded by the Settlement Officer must be regarded by Courts adjudicating on zamindar's demands for rent as conclusive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and it is provided in para. 5 that the decision of the Board shall be final. But such right could arise only in respect of the decisions of Collectors in suits of which the Collectors are empowered to take cognisance, such as summary euits for rents and the like referred to in sections 20 and 21. The provisions of Rule 29 have thus no application to the determinations of the Collector and other Revenue Officers conducting investigations under S. 9. Nor are the provisions in the Regulation as to the right of challenge in civil suits similar to those in chapter x of part II of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Section 104-H of that Act provides that "any person aggrieved by an entry of a rent settled" may institute a suit in the civil Court contesting the settlement, and a period of limitation is also provided for such suit. Subject to the result of such suit Section 104-J raises an irrebuttable presumption that the rent was correctly settled, and it is not open to the defendant in a suit for rent to prove the contrary. It was in view of these provisions that the Privy Council held in Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria v. The Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. 69 I.A. 51 A.I.R. (29) 1942 P.C. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s before the officer but, though he referred to its terms in the Diara Assessment Roll (EX. D). he fixed the rent for the new land on the basis of another patta apparently relating to some other land. This contention of the appellant, in my opinion, is bound to prevail. Mr. Chakravarti having conceded that Section 191 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has no application to the case, there is no provision of law which entitles the Diara Officer to disregard or override the contractual rights of parties and he cannot any more than a Settlement Officer acting under chap. X part II, Bengal Tenancy Act, (see Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria v. The Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. A.I.R. (29) 1942 P.C. 8 settle rents payable by tenants-in such manner as to conflict with existing contracts. It follows that the entry in the Khatian No. 556, on which the respondent's claim in the suit was based must be held to be erroneous. In this view it is unnecessary to deal with the question of levels especially as the suit has not been based on the contract embodied on the patta of 1907. I concur in the order as to costs. Mahajan, J. 29. I agree with the judgment delivered by my brother Mukherji J. As we are di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whether such settlement could supersede the contract between the parties. This point has to be answered on the language of Regulation VII [7] of 1822 and Act XXXI [31] of 1858. Reliance was placed in the High Court on Section 191, Bengal Tenancy Act as authorising the Revenue Officer to settle fair and equitable rents even in cases where they were determined by a contract. This contention was given up in this Court, as it could not be supported, the Act admittedly having no application to cases of tenancies of a non-agricultural character. 31. Section 9 of Regulation VII [7] of 1822 deals with the duties of Collectors and other officers exercising powers of Collector on the occasion of making and revising settlement of the land revenue. It is said in this section that it will be their duty to unite with the adjustment of the assessment and the investigation of the extent and produce of the lands, the object of ascertaining and recording the fullest possible information in regard to land tenures, the rights, interests and privileges of the various classes of the agricultural community, and that: For this purpose, their proceedings shall embrace the formation of as accurate a reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e" in the context in which it has been used does not convey the meaning that it includes within its scope the power to enhance and abate rents or to determine fair and equitable rents. In order to get true information and ascertain existing rents the revenue officer may have to determine or settle what the customary or existing rent is, one party asserting one rate of customary rent and the other party alleging a different rate. Moreover, even the dictionary meaning of the word "settle" does not warrant the view that its use simpliciter implies a power to fix fair and equitable rents or a power to enhance them. 32. The section in my view mainly concerns itself with laying down the duties of the Collectors and says that they should collect the fullest possible information in regard to all matters for the purpose of preparing as accurate a record as possible and this was its main purpose. The Collector was not constituted an arbiter of rents and the section does not make his decision conclusive on the point. A power to enhance or abate rents or to fix them on equitable basis has to be conferred specifically or the language employed should be such from which it can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only be done during a regular suit. It was immaterial whether that suit was by a landlord or by a tenant. The language employed is not similar to that employed in Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. or other similar phraseology employed in other statutes. No finality was given to any decision of the Col-lector, but it was said that the. ascertainment made by him of rents will regulate a decision of a civil Court till such ascertainment was found on full investigation in a Court of law to be erroneous. The jurisdiction of civil Court was kept alive and not ousted by the regulation regarding the matters cited in the record of rights. 36. The learned Judges of the High Court were impressed with the arguments which they accepted that the regulation was a self-contained law on the question of determination and settlement of rents; that from the decision of the Collector under Section 9 a right was conferred on the aggrieved party to appeal to the Board of Revenue; that a further right of suit was given to avoid such a decision, and till that was done the decision was final. If the assumption that the ascertainment by the Collector of rents amounted to a decision by him and that the aggrieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hinks fit authority to receive, try and determine by summary process, all suits for rent which may be preferred by zamindars, talookdars or other sudder malguzarg or farmers of land against any dependant talookdar, zamindar, under renter, ryat, or other under-tenant of whatever denomination, as well as all applications by ryats and the under-tenants contesting the demand of a sudder malguzar or farmer, and all complaints preferred by ryats or other under-tenants of whatever description, against landholders or farmers of land-on account of excessive demands or undue exaction of rent whether levied by distraint or otherwise, as well as all suits relative to the adjustment of accounts between landholders and farmers of land or under-tenants of whatever description, and generally complaints of any deviation from the regulation, or from the established usage of the country relative to the matters aforesaid, or any violation of subsisting engagements in disputes respecting the rent and occupancy of land, between landlords or farmers of land, and their under-tenants of whatever denomination. This section empowers the Government to confer jurisdiction on such Collectors as it thinks fit to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proceedings held on the summary inquiry shall be called by precept for the Court, and filed on the record of the case. In the result neither Section 20 nor Section 30 of the Regulation has any bearing on the question of enhancement or abatement of rents and these do not confer jurisdiction on the Collectors in the matter of fixing of fair and equitable rents. The Revenue Officer cannot act in the matter of enhancement of rents unless he is conferred jurisdiction to do so by statute. The summary suits contemplated by Section 20 are of the nature that usually arise between landlords and tenants in the ordinary way in view of their existing contracts or according to customs, usage, etc, and cover cases of illegal exactions raised by the proprietors on the tenants. The concluding portion of Section 20(1) fully supports this view. 41. In expressing the above opinion I am fortified by the trend of later legislation enacted in the various Tenancy Acts in different provinces in India. Whenever it was intended by the Legislature to confer jurisdiction on a Collector or on a revenue authority in the matter of enhancement or abatement of rent, enactment for that purpose was made in expres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hs from the date of the certificate of the...decision of any dispute regarding any entry which a Revenue Officer has made in or any omission which the said officer has made in the said record. 109. A civil Court shall not entertain any application or suit concerning any matter which is or has already been the subject of an application made in suit instituted or proceedings taken under Sections 105 to 108. From these provisions, it is quite clear that when it is intended by the Legislature to make the decision of a Revenue Officer binding it is necessary to enact specifically and clearly on the point and to lay down a procedure of contesting his decisions. No such thing has been done by Regulation VII [7] of 1822. All that the Regulation did was to make presumptive evidence the entries made in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of S. 9 of the Regulation, till they were proved incorrect in the course of any regular civil suit. That being the scope of the Regulation, in my opinion, the High Court was in error when it held that on the plain reading of the Regulation uninfluenced by any judicial interpretation it was permissible to conclude that the duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer does not include within its scope the power of interference with an existing contract. Where rent of alluvial land that subsequently accretes to a holding has already been determined between the parties, no occasion arises for determination of rent for alluvial land. The true construction of these words is that the Revenue Officer was given power to fix additional rent for additional land recovered by alluvion in cases where no rent had been fixed for that land. The clause presumes that for the additional land recovered by alluvion no rent is already payable by the tenant to the landlord and therefore for this additional land some rent has to be fixed but it does not contemplate cases where either by express agreement between the parties it has been provided that when alluvial land would accrete to a holding no rent will be charged for it or that rent at a particular rate will be payable for that land. The agreement that for the land no rent is payable between landlord and tenant will be binding on them, though for revenue assessment the Revenue Officer may in such a case determine additional rent for the accreted land that has come to a holding by alluvion. The language c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sted for departing from them, these should have been followed. B.K. Mukherjea, J. 46. This appeal is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 25th August 1945, passed in Second Appeal No. 795 of 1941, and its arises out of a suit commenced by the respondent plaintiff for recovery of arrears of rent alleged to be due by the appellant defendant in respect of certain alluvial lands, formed by recession of the river Hooghly and constituting an accretion to an already existing chur. 47. To appreciate the points in controversy in this appeal, it will be necessary to state a few facts. By a registered Potta dated 6th May 1907, Raja Kishorilal Goswami, the predecessor of the plaintiff, granted a permanent mokarari lease to a company known as Colonial Trading Company of Trieste, of two parcels of land abutting on the river Hooghly and situated in village Jugad-dal within the 24 Parganas Collectorate. The first of these plots was high land, measuring 96 bighas and it was settled at a Selami of ₹ 500 per bigha with a fixed annual rental of ₹ 25 per bigha. The second plot was a piece of chur land situated contiguously to the first and it h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any proceeding for settlement of rent under Ch. 10 Part II, Bengal Tenancy Act, and the lands being non-agricultural lands, the Revenue Officer was not competent in law to settle fair and equitable rents under the Bengal Tenancy Act. It was contended further that under the terms of the Potta, no rent was payable in respect of the suit lands, as they had not attained the level of the high lands through natural processes and that the entry in the Settlement Khatian, which ignored the con. tract between the parties was erroneous and could not impose any legal liability on the defendant to pay the rent mentioned therein. 50. After the written statement was filed, the plaintiff applied for and obtained an order for amendment of the plaint by which reference to Ch. 10, Bengal Tenancy Act, as was made in the plaint, was deleted, and it was stated in its-place that the rent had been settled by the Revenue Officer under "appropriate regulations and laws." The trial proceeded on the footing that the rent was settled under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 and Section 191, Bengal Tenancy Act, and Mr. Chakravarty, appearing for the plaintiff respondent, stated at the outset that it was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d leave to file an appeal to the Judicial Committee. Before, however, the records of the case could be transmitted to England, the powers of this Court were enlarged by Act I [1] of 1948 and in accordance with the provisions of that Act, the appeal has now come up before this Court for hearing. 54. Two questions, it seems, were canvassed before the High Court and decided by it. The first and the primary question was whether the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to settle and determine rents payable by the under-tenant to the proprietor, under the provisions of Regulation VII [7] of 1822 read with Section 2 of Act XXXI [31] of 1858 and make such determination binding upon the tenant. The second question was whether in such a case the Settlement Officer could override any already existing contract between the parties. Both the questions were answered by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff. 55. On the first question, the learned Judges were confronted with a large number of decided authorities of their own Court which uniformly took the view that in proceedings under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 the Settlement Officer was only empowered to record the existing rates of rent in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment binding on the tenants. 58. A subsidiary question would also require consideration, viz. what legal effect is to be given to the record of a Settlement Officer pre-pared under Regulation VII [7] of 1822, although it appears that the officer purported to settle fair and equitable rents payable by tenants instead of ascertaining merely what the rents are. 59. Now Regulation VII [7] of 1822 is a piece of ancient legislation which was brought into existence in the early days of British rule in India. For the purpose of appreciating the scope and object of an old statute like this and for explaining its language which may be susceptible of different meanings, it may be useful to remember the well known historical facts that led to the passing of this enactment. It is a settled canon of construction that the interpreter should place himself as far as possible in the position of those whose words he is interpreting, and the meaning of certain words and terms used in an ancient document or a statute can be properly explained only by reference to the circumstances existing at the time when the statute was enacted or the document was written. Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, p. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Revenue Officers should be directed not to any extensive enhancement of the jama but to the objects of equalising the public burthens, and of ascertaining, settling and recording the rights, interests, privileges and properties of all persons and classes possessing interest in the lands or in the rent or produce thereof. In the third place, it was stated that it was the desire of the Government that the proceedings held and the records formed by the Collectors should be such that all demands, claims and suits might be adjudged and determined according to the facts stated therein unless they were formally altered or shown to be incorrect after full investigation in a regular suit. 62. To carry out these objects, elaborate pro-visions are made in the different sections of the Regulation. We are not concerned with many of these sections for our present purpose. Section 3 of Regulation VII [7] of 1822 prescribes how settlements are to be made on the expiry of the existing leases. Section 4, upon which some stress was laid on behalf of the respondent, con. templates cases where there are several parties interested in the land and it provides that in such cases if settlement is ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... definitely show that the duties of the Collector under the Regulation are not merely to ascertain and record existing rights with a view to ascertain in the assets for the purpose of fixing the revenue but also to fix and determine rents payable by under-tenants and that subject to a right of suit in a civil Court the decision of the revenue authorities on these matters is final. I do not think that this is the proper view to take on the language of the section. 64. Regulation VII [7] of 1822 is an enactment relating to settlement of land revenue and not to settlement of rent. Unlike the rent Acts of later years, it does not purport to regulate the relations between landlord and tenant and does not lay down the conditions under which rents could be enhanced. The record-of-rights that has got to be prepared under the provisions of this Regulation is solely for the purpose of revenue settlement. Instead of proceeding to an estimated lump sum settlement without a survey and enquiry into details as was done in 1793, it directs a survey and enquiry into the rights in every village and field for the purpose of determining the net rental or produce of the land on the basis of which reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld form part of his record. The rights thus as-certained would be taken by Courts of Law to be correct and they shall be bound to decide any dispute between the parties on the basis thereof unless the record is altered by mutual agreement or by judicial pronouncement in a regularly instituted suit. 65. That this is the correct view of the powers of the Settlement authorities acting under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 would be clear when we look to the subsequent rent legislation in Bengal. In Bengal Act, X [10] of 1859 which was the first attempt to codify the law relating to agricultural tenancies in Bengal, definite provisions were made specifying the grounds upon which alone landlords could claim enhancement of rents paid by the tenants (vide Section 17). Identical provisions are to be found in Bengal Act, VIII [8] of 1869 (vide Section 18) by which the procedure in suits between landlord and tenant was amended and rent suits which were triable by Collectors under Act X [10] of 1859 were made cognisable exclusively by civil Courts. In 1878, an Act was passed (Act III [3] of 1878) which laid down in clear terms that in settlement proceedings under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 no ren....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovision in this Act under which the Settlement Officer could ignore any contract between the parties in the matter of settlement of rent and in the case of Prianath Das v. Ram Taran Chatter ji 30 I.A. 169, which was a case where rent was settled under this Act, the Privy Council held that if the landlord who granted the lease himself took revenue settlement of the estate, he could not demand rent in contravention of the terms of the contract even though such rent was fixed by the Settlement Officer. The Bengal Rent Settlement Act has been repealed so far as Bengal is concerned by the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1883 and chap. X, Part. II, Bengal Tenancy Act with the modifications introduced since then, now contains the law relating to settlement of fair and equitable rent by revenue officers for all classes of tenants when settlement of land re-venue is being or is about to be made and there is an express provision in this Act under which the revenue authorities can ignore a contract between the parties if the contract was entered into subsequent to the passing of the Act. 66. Mr. Chakravarty argues that the provisions in the Bengal Tenancy Act relating to settlement of fair and equita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 1858 upon which so much stress has been laid by the learned Judges of the High Court. Act XXXI [31] of 1858 was introduced for removing doubts which were felt by the revenue authorities resspecting the proper course to be followed in the settlement of land added by alluvial accession to estates paying revenue to Government. Under Regulation, XI of 1825 whenever land is gained by gradual accession whether from the recess of a river or of the sea, it shall be considered an increment to the estate or tenure to which it is attached. The proprietor of the estate, however, can be assessed to additional revenue for the added land and the tenant, to whose tenancy it is an increment, is liable to pay additional rent for it. Act XXXI of 1858 is a small Act of two sections. The first section lays down the two alternative courses open to the revenue authorities while making settlement of the alluvial lands. The revenue assessed on the alluvial lands may be -added to the jumma of the original estate or a new estate may be formed out of the added lands which is to be treated as a separate estate, no matter whether it is settled with the original proprietor or let in farm. Section 2 so far as i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be by way of a suit under Section 52, Bengal Tenancy Act where that Act is applicable. On this point again, I am of opinion that the case of Dhirendra Chandra Rai v. Nawab Khaja Habibulla A.I.R. (12) 1925 Cal. 758, was rightly decided and the learned Judges of the High Court were wrong in holding that this decision was unsound. 68. It remains now to consider the other question raised on behalf of the respondent and which relates to the legal effect to be attached to the record of a settlement officer acting under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 even if such record has been erroneously made. Mr. Chakravarty argues that under Regulation VII [7] of 1822 an entry as to rent payable by a tenant even if improper has got a presumptive value and it would be binding on Courts of Law unless it is altered by mutual agreement or by judicial pronouncement in a regular suit. The entry as to rent that has been made in the present case, it is argued, must, therefore, be held binding unless it is set aside in an appropriate manner which the Regulation contemplates. 69. It is true that a presumption of validity attaches to the record of the Collector under the provision of Section 9 of Regulation VI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collectors. Under Regulation VIII [8] of 1831 summary suits for rents could be brought before a Collector of Revenue and his decision was final subject to the right of the aggrieved party to bring a regular suit contesting its validity in a civil Court. Under Act X [10] of 1859, exclusive jurisdiction in rent suits was given to the Collectors but this was again taken away and restored to civil Courts by Act VIII [81 of 1869. There is no doubt in my mind that the rent suit, which has been brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge in the present case, would answer to the description of a regular suit as given in the regulation, and it seems to me that it is open to the defendant to challenge the validity of the entry relating to rent as settled by the Revenue Officer by way of defence in this suit. The language of Section 9 of Regulation, VII [7] of 1823 does not warrant the conclusion that the party aggrieved by the entry must have to bring a suit as plaintiff and could not challenge the validity of the same by way of defence in a suit instituted against him by the other side in whose favour the entry stands, nor does it prescribe any period of time within which the record must....