Shambhu Chandra Hazra v. Purna Chandra Pal

Maclean, C.J:— These appeals arise out of settlement proceedings initiated by the landlord who applied for the preparation of a record-of-rights. An enquiry was held by the Settlement Officer and a draft record-of-rights published on the 31st March 1903, the parties being informed that the record would be open for inspection, and that objections would be received within one month. No objections were preferred, and on 9th June 1903 the record-of-rights was finally published. The Settlement Officer then proceeded in accordance with the landlord's application to settle fair and equitable rents, and on 14th August 1903 the tenants, who had been recorded as settled raiyats holding mal lands, put in a petition objecting that some of their lands recorded as mal were lakhiraj, and that their status was that of raiyats holding at a fixed rent. The Settlement Officer on enquiry gave effect to the first of these objections, and altered the entry in the record-of-rights, recording as lakhiraj lands which had been put down as mal. As regards the second objection the Settlement Officer held that the raiyats had not proved that they had held lands at a uniform rate of rent since the permanent settlement. The Settlement Officer's orders on these points were upheld by the Special Judge on appeal.

In Appeal No. 1033 which is by the landlords it is objected that the Settlement Officer was not competent to revise the entries relating to mal lands. The Special Judge has held that sec. 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act gives the Settlement Officer power to alter these entries. That section provides that a revenue-officer….. “may on application or of his own motion within twelve months from the making of any order or decision under sec. 105, sec. 106, or sec. 107 revise the same.” It seems clear to us that the entry as to mal lands was not made under any of the sections mentioned. Sec. 105 refers to the settlement of fair and equitable rents. Sec. 106 relates to the decision of disputes regarding entries in the record-of-rights. These disputes can only be decided by the presentation of a plaint on stamped paper. No such plaint had been presented, nor had the Settlement Officer professed to settle any such dispute under sec. 106. Sec. 107 merely refers to the procedure to be adopted under the two preceding sections and directs the revenue-officer to make in the record-of-rights a note of all rents settled under sec. 105 and of all decisions of disputes passed under sec. 106. It appears to us, therefore, that sec. 108 did not warrant the Settlement Officer in revising the entries as to mal lands in the record-of-rights. The Act gives to tenants ample opportunity for the correction of mistakes in that record. The draft record is prepared in the presence of landlord and tenant. The draft is then published, and objections to any entries therein are invited and considered before it is finally-published. A still further opportunity is afforded even after final publication by sec. 106, which allows the parties to institute before the revenue-officer a suit for the decision of any dispute regarding the entries. In the present case the tenants made no objection to the draft record, nor did they after final publication institute any suit regarding the mal lands. The Settlement Officer had no authority to revise the entries regarding mal lands in the record-of-rights and his orders on this point must be set aside.

Another objection taken in the landlord's appeal is in regard to the limitation of enhancement of rent imposed by the Settlement Officer who has directed that the rent shall not be enhanced so as to be in excess of one and a half times the existing rent. It is urged that such a limitation is inequitable. In cases where the tenant is holding an area in excess of that on which his existing rent was fixed. We are, however, unable to entertain this objection, as the order complained of is a decision settling a rent, and on such a point no second appeal lies. See sec. 109A (sub-sec. 3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act.

In Appeal No. 1081 preferred by the tenants the sole ground urged is that the Settlement Officer was wrong in deciding that their status was not that of tenants holding at fixed rents. For the reasons already given in former part of this judgment regarding mal land, we are of opinion that the Settlement Officer had no power to entertain their objection as to their status. Their status had been, recorded in the draft record as that of settled raiyats. No objection to this entry was made before final publication, nor was any plaint presented to the Settlement Officer for a decision of a dispute on this point.

The result is that the landlord's appeal No. 1033 succeeds in part. The entries in regard to lakhiraj lands must be expunged, and the lands entered as mal. In this appeal we direct that each party bear its own costs.

Appeal No. 1081 fails and is dismissed with costs.