Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the permanent settlement of revenue in Pargana Goas, Bengal. The predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, zamindars of Pargana Goas, were in possession of eleven ferries appertaining to Huda Alaipur and received income by letting out the right to transport passengers and goods and by levying tolls. The revenue payable to the Government in respect of these ferries was separately assessed at Rs. 4,800 per annum. Between 1857 and 1860, the Government of Bengal declared these ferries public ferries under Regulation VI of 1819 and resumed them, paying the then zamindar Rs. 53,923-4-6 as compensation, being ten times the income received from the ferries in the year next after resumption. No abatement of revenue was granted, and the zamindars continued to be compelled to pay revenue for the resumed ferries under threat of coercive process. On December 17, 1945, Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha filed a suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Murshidabad, against the Province of Bengal, seeking a declaration of entitlement to abatement of revenue to the extent of Rs. 4,800 per annum and a refund of excess revenue realized. The suit was resisted by the State of West Bengal after Indian Independence. The trial court decreed the suit, awarding abatement and refund of Rs. 14,440 for three years preceding the suit. The High Court reversed the decree, holding that the compensation included the value of abatement and that the claim was barred by limitation; on jurisdiction the two judges differed. The Supreme Court held that the compensation paid did not include the capitalized value of abatement and that the zamindar ceased to be liable to pay revenue for the resumed ferries. The Court further held that the claim for refund was limited to three years from each payment, but the declaration was not barred, and each demand by the Government conferred a fresh cause of action. The Court also held that the civil court jurisdiction was not excluded by the relevant regulations and manual, and the cited precedent had no bearing. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court judgment was set aside, restoring the trial court's decree.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Abatement of Revenue - Resumption of Ferries - Bengal Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1793; Bengal Regulation VI of 1819 - On resumption or acquisition of ferries by the Government, the zamindar ceased to be liable to pay the annual revenue assessed upon the ferries unless the compensation paid included the capitalized value of the abatement. The compensation of Rs. 53,923-4-6, being ten times the gross collection from the ferries in the year after resumption, did not by itself prove inclusion of the value of abatement; no evidence showed that the Government took into account the value of abatement or that the zamindar agreed to continue paying revenue after resumption. Held that the liability to pay revenue abated upon resumption of the ferries (Paras 1-11). B) Limitation - Refund of Revenue Not Due - Limitation Act, 1908 - A right to collect revenue which is not due cannot be acquired by prescription; claim for refund of sums paid under compulsion could properly be made within three years from the date of payment; claim for declaration of a right to abatement is not barred by limitation; each demand for recovery by the Government confers a fresh cause of action; no adverse inference could be drawn from delay in making the claim for abatement. Held that the suit was not barred by limitation (Paras 1-11). C) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Exclusion of Jurisdiction - Bengal Regulation XIX of 1816; Bengal Regulation VI of 1819; Act 1 of 1886; Bengal Tauzi Manual, 1940 - The statutory provisions did not indicate that the jurisdiction of the civil court was excluded in respect of matters relating to abatement of revenue; the decision in Secretary of State for India in Council v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh Bahadur, I.L.R. 15 Pat. 246 had no bearing on the present case. Held that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit (Paras 1-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to abatement of revenue payable on resumption of ferries; whether the compensation paid included the capitalized value of abatement; whether the suit was barred by limitation; whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit; whether the ferries resumed were identical with those assessed and separately assessed to revenue.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and restored the trial court's decree granting abatement of revenue to the extent of Rs. 4,800 per annum and refund of Rs. 14,440 for three years preceding the suit, holding that the zamindar ceased to be liable for revenue on resumption, the suit was not barred by limitation, and the civil court had jurisdiction.
Law Points
- On resumption or acquisition of ferries by Government
- zamindar ceased to be liable to pay annual revenue assessed upon ferries unless compensation included capitalized value of abatement
- no adverse inference from delay in claiming abatement
- right to collect revenue not due cannot be acquired by prescription
- claim for refund of revenue not due must be made within three years from payment
- claim for declaration of right to abatement has no bar of limitation
- each demand for recovery by Government confers fresh cause of action
- civil court jurisdiction not excluded by Regulation XIX of 1816
- Regulation VI of 1819
- Act 1 of 1886
- or Bengal Tauzi Manual 1940
