9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of certificates issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act. 2. Barred by limitation under Sections 34, 35, and 37 of the Act. 3. Challenge of correctness of entries in the Record-of-Rights. 4. Plaintiffs' liability to pay rent and cesses to the Government for accreted lands. Analysis: 1. The plaintiffs, being cosharers in a zamindari and putnidars under the zemindars, faced diarah proceedings by the Government for accreted lands. The Government issued certificates for arrears of rent and cesses, which the plaintiffs paid under protest and later challenged as ultra vires and null. The key issue was whether the validity of the certificates and the liability to pay public demands could be challenged outside the Act's provisions. 2. Three defenses were raised by the Secretary of State, including the bar of limitation under the Act and the preclusion of challenging Record-of-Rights entries. The court examined the legislative intent behind the Act and the rights of the certificate debtors to challenge the public demands. The court emphasized the need for a valid "public demand" to exist for the certificate to be valid, citing relevant case law to support this interpretation. 3. The court analyzed the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act regarding the conclusiveness of entries in the Record-of-Rights. While the rent settled entry was conclusive, other entries could be challenged and presumed correct until proven otherwise. The plaintiffs successfully rebutted the entries showing them as tenants through sub-tenants, as they were not offered settlement and did not possess the diarah mahals. 4. The defendant contended that the Government could treat the plaintiffs as tenants and claim rents and cesses for the accreted lands. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that compelling the plaintiffs to take settlement against their will was unjust and not supported by law. The court held that no public demand was due from the plaintiffs at the time of certificate issuance, rendering the certificates and subsequent proceedings null and void. 5. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the declarations sought and ordering a refund of the amounts paid under protest, except for one payment made beyond the statutory time limit. The lower appellate court's decrees were set aside, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs in all courts. Both judges, Page and Mallik, concurred with the decision, providing a unanimous judgment.
|
