1924 (5) TMI 3 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the assessment imposed during the diara survey.
2. Validity and legality of the diara proceedings.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Act IX of 1847.
4. Whether a new survey and map were prepared as required by the notification.
5. Whether the lands in question were already assessed within the existing mahals.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the assessment imposed during the diara survey:

The plaintiffs contested the legality of the assessment imposed on lands in the villages of Amragachi Hagalpati and Nizamia Gopekhali, arguing that the operations in connection with the diara proceedings were ultra vires and void. The plaintiffs claimed that no new survey was made of any land on the banks of the rivers Sapleza and Baleswar in accordance with Government notification No. 1967 T.R., dated October 2, 1900, issued under Act IX. of 1847, and that no map was prepared under the said Act. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the diara proceedings ultra vires and void. However, the Privy Council found that the assessment was lawful and that the lands were subject to Government revenue.

2. Validity and legality of the diara proceedings:

The primary issue was whether the diara proceedings were valid and legal. The plaintiffs argued that the correct procedure for enabling such revenue to be imposed was defective, resulting in the lands standing free from taxation. The Privy Council noted that the objections made on various points were mainly procedural and that the substantial issue of whether alluvion had taken place was not in doubt. The Privy Council concluded that the diara proceedings were valid and legal, emphasizing that the burden of proving fundamental irregularity in the procedure rested upon the plaintiffs.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Act IX of 1847:

The plaintiffs contended that the proceedings were tainted by fundamental irregularity and non-compliance with the essentials of the procedure under Act IX of 1847. The Privy Council highlighted that Section 6 of the Act required the local revenue authorities to assess the land added to any estate paying revenue directly to the Government without delay and report their proceedings to the Board of Revenue, whose orders would be final. The Privy Council found that the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and that any objections to the procedure should have been addressed to the Board of Revenue.

4. Whether a new survey and map were prepared as required by the notification:

The plaintiffs claimed that no new survey was made, and no map was prepared as required by the notification. The Privy Council examined the evidence provided by the Diara Deputy Collector and the surveyor, which confirmed that previous maps were used, and the alluviated land was visited and surveyed. The Privy Council concluded that the survey and mapping were conducted properly, and any objections to the mapping process should have been raised before the Board of Revenue. The Privy Council emphasized that the superimposition of maps was a practical and legal method for determining the extent of alluvion.

5. Whether the lands in question were already assessed within the existing mahals:

The plaintiffs argued that the lands in question were already assessed within the existing mahals and should not be subject to fresh assessment. The Privy Council referred to the case of Secretary of State for India v. Maharaja of Burdwan, which established that the Government is entitled to public revenue from chars formed in a non-navigable river, even where it flows through a permanently settled zamindari. The Privy Council concluded that the lands were not already assessed within the existing mahals and were subject to fresh assessment.

Conclusion:

The Privy Council set aside the decree of the High Court and dismissed the suit with costs, concluding that the diara proceedings were valid and legal, the assessment was lawful, and the procedural requirements under Act IX of 1847 were complied with. The Privy Council emphasized the importance of addressing procedural objections to the Board of Revenue and the burden of proving fundamental irregularity rested upon the plaintiffs.