1886 (8) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to inquire into the assessability of lands under Act IX of 1847.
2. Assessability of lands under Act IX of 1847.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to Inquire into the Assessability of Lands under Act IX of 1847:

Arthur Wilson, J.:
- The case revolves around whether a Civil Court has the jurisdiction to inquire if the lands in question were assessable under Act IX of 1847.
- The substantive law is clear: lands included in a permanently-settled estate are not liable to further assessment, while lands not included are liable.
- The determination of liability and assessment are distinct questions, with liability being a matter for Courts of Justice and assessment for Revenue Authorities.
- Under previous regulations, the question of liability could be tried by the Collector, Board of Revenue, Civil Courts, or Special Commissioners, all acting as judicial tribunals.
- Act IX of 1847 repealed the parts of the Regulations that established tribunals and prescribed rules for investigating liability to assessment, thus taking away the power of Collectors and Boards of Revenue to give binding decisions on the point.
- Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 directs Revenue Authorities to assess lands appearing to be added to an estate on inspection of new maps, with the orders of the Board of Revenue being final. However, this finality applies to the assessment and not to the question of liability, which remains open to Civil Courts.
- Section 9 of Act IX of 1847, which mentions good faith actions by Revenue Authorities, does not preclude suits to establish title but limits suits for damages.
- The conclusion is that Civil Courts can inquire into the liability of lands to assessment, and the lands in question were not liable to be assessed.

Mitter, J.:
- Agrees that lands re-formed on the site of an estate are not gained from the sea or rivers by alluvion or dereliction and thus do not fall under Act IX of 1847.
- The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain suits challenging the liability to assessment under Act IX of 1847 has been consistently denied by previous decisions.
- The scope of Act IX of 1847 is to lay down rules for investigating the liability to assessment and abolishing previous tribunals and procedures.
- Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 makes the orders of the Board of Revenue final, including both the question of liability and the rate of assessment.
- The judicial functions of Revenue Authorities under Regulation II of 1819 were not abolished by Act IX of 1847.
- The investigation into the question of liability should be conducted by Revenue Authorities under Regulation II of 1819, guided by Regulation XI of 1825.
- The finality of the Board of Revenue's orders under Section 6 applies to both the liability and the rate of assessment.
- Civil Courts have no power to question the findings of the Board of Revenue if it appears on the face of the proceedings that they had jurisdiction under Act IX of 1847.

2. Assessability of Lands under Act IX of 1847:

Arthur Wilson, J.:
- The substantive law states that lands included in a permanently-settled estate are not liable to further assessment.
- The lands in question were part of a permanently-settled estate and re-formed on the old site, making them not liable to assessment.
- The Revenue Authorities' conclusions are not binding, and Civil Courts have jurisdiction to inquire into the question of liability.
- The lands in question were not liable to be assessed.

Mitter, J.:
- Lands re-formed on the site of an estate are not gained from the sea or rivers by alluvion or dereliction and do not fall under Act IX of 1847.
- The orders of the Board of Revenue under Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 are final, including both the question of liability and the rate of assessment.
- The Revenue Authorities had jurisdiction under Act IX of 1847 to assess the lands in suit as an alluvial increment.
- Civil Courts have no power to declare the proceedings of the Revenue Authorities as ultra vires if it appears on the face of the proceedings that they had jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
- The judgment concludes that Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to inquire into the assessability of lands under Act IX of 1847, and the lands in question were not liable to be assessed.
- Mitter, J. dissents, holding that the orders of the Board of Revenue under Section 6 of Act IX of 1847 are final, and Civil Courts have no power to question them if the Revenue Authorities had jurisdiction.