Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Attorney(S)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns long-running disputes between the Government of Bengal and holders of certain Ghatwali/Ghatwally tenures (described in parts of the text as Ghatwali lands attached to the Zemindary of Khuruckpore and holdings such as those of the Ghar Foujdar in Tuppa). The Government of Bengal sought to establish a right to resume and re-assess (and to fix revenue) in respect of particular Ghatwally lands comprising a portion of the Zemindary of Khuruckpore. Several administrative reports and inquiries (including reports by collectors and special commissioners such as Mr. Dickenson, Mr. D'Oyley and Mr. Moore) were made to determine whether such lands had been excluded from the permanent settlement or were included within it.

There were earlier proceedings and administrative decisions: some official inquiries and special commissioners concluded that many of the Ghatwali lands had not been excepted from the settlement, and the Government pursued claims to include them for revenue or to resume grants. Conversely, other findings and decisions (including decisions against the Government by the Government's own officers and by lower judges) had recognized the rights of the landholders or purchasers. The litigation became long and expensive.

The opinion records that, in view of the procedural and substantive history, Their Lordships considered whether the Government should be ordered to repay sums received from the Appellant under earlier orders of the judges below and to pay costs including the costs of the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Ghatwali (Ghatwally) lands in question were included in the permanent settlement of the Zemindary of Khuruckpore (and thus not subject to Governmental resumption), or whether they were excepted from that settlement.
Whether the Government of Bengal could lawfully resume grants or claim additional revenue from lands that had been treated as part of a long-standing settlement (including whether grants originally made as exemptions for maintaining police/troops could be resumed).
Whether allowances made by Government for police forces (whether in land or in money) should be treated as part of the settlement and therefore chargeable upon the landholders as part of the jumma (settlement amount).
In a separate arbitration-related portion of the opinion: whether an award (specifically an award by Mr. Frere, agent of the Bombay Government at Surat) made upon a submission to arbitration complied with the requirements of Bombay Regulation VII of 1827 so as to be enforceable with the force of a decree of Court.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
SUSBERUNJEE PESTONJEE (cited with L R. 12 Ind. App. 914)	The text connects this authority with the principle that, to enable a Zillah Court under Bombay Regulation VII of 1827 to give an award the force of a decree, the deed of submission to arbitration must contain all conditions required by that Regulation (for example, specifying the time within which the award is to be made). The decision held that a deed of submission without a provision for time could be bad and an award under it might not be enforceable as a decree unless the Regulation's requirements were fulfilled; but a subsequent parol agreement by the parties before the arbitrator to waive defects might cure the defect.	The opinion cites the principle from this authority when discussing whether an award (specifically the award of Mr. Frere) fell within the operation of the Bombay Regulation and could be enforced as a decree. The Court uses the rule as background to the question whether the arbitral award complied with the statutory requirements.
ERWASJEE PESTOSJEE and Others (appeal noted in the text)	The provided text states matters concerning arbitration and the formal requirements of deeds of submission under Regulation VII of 1827, tying this citation into the same line of authority about the formal requisites for enforcement of awards; the text does not set out any further specific doctrinal proposition uniquely attributed to this name beyond that general topic.	The opinion refers to the arbitration-related authorities (including this citation) in framing the question whether the particular award in that separate matter had the force of a decree; the application is confined to deciding enforceability under the Regulation.
Reference: "L R. 12 Ind. dpp. 914" (report citation appearing in the text)	The document cites this report number in proximity to the Susberunjee Pestonjee matter; the provided text does not state expressly the substantive rule drawn from this report beyond identifying the reported authority.	The opinion cites this report as an authority in the discussion of the arbitration/regulation point, but the precise application from the report is not elaborated in the provided text.
Award of Mr. Frere (agent of the Bombay Government at Surat)	The opinion frames a question whether the award made by Mr. Frere upon a submission to arbitration was within the provisions of Bombay Regulation VII of 1827 so as to entitle it to the force of a decree of Court, or whether it had only the quality of an ordinary arbitral award. This framing of the question is contained in the text.	The Court examined (as recorded) whether that award complied with the Regulation and whether the Order of the Sudder Dewanny Court directing the award to be enforced as a decree was proper. The text records that the issue was raised and considered; the provided extract does not show the final disposition of that specific arbitration question.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeds from the historical and administrative facts toward equitable relief:

Historical-possession and administrative history: The court reviewed evidence showing that the Zemindary and the Ghatwali tenures had existed long before the permanent settlement made at or about the accession of the East India Company (1765) and that possessory rights and practices had continued through generations. The Court noted that these matters were "fully stated and explained" in the reports and that the extent and particulars of the tenures were well known to Government at the time the settlement was made.
Statutory/regulatory framework: The opinion discusses various Regulations (for example Regulation XLII, Regulation XLIX of 1792, and provisions of the Decennial Settlement and related regulations of 1803 and 1819). The Court examined those regulatory provisions as they bore on whether particular classes of land (e.g., La-khiraj lands; Chaekeran lands; Ghatwali tenures) were to be included in or excluded from permanent settlements, and on how allowances for police maintenance were to be treated in the settlement (i.e., whether allowances in land or money were to be included in the jumma and hence a charge on landholders).
Administrative findings and inquiries: The Court considered reports by district collectors and by special commissioners (including Mr. Dickenson, Mr. D'Oyley and Mr. Moore). Some reports concluded that the Ghatwali lands had not been excepted from the settlement and were therefore included in the Zemindary settlement; other inquiries and decisions had been made at different times and sometimes in favour of the landholders. The Court noted that administrative decisions and fixed assessments had been made (e.g., a jumma fixed at a particular sum in certain correspondence mentioned).
Government conduct and estoppel considerations: The Court weighed the fact that the Government had, after the settlement, acted in ways that made the settlement appear permanent; earlier attempts to disturb the settlement had repeatedly failed, and there had been "several decisions against the Government by their own officer judges." The Court emphasised that the Government's attempt to disturb a settlement that had stood undisputed for many years—and on which the Appellant and purchasers had relied—was a serious matter.
Equity and remedial conclusion: Given the long duration of the settlement, prior adverse decisions to the Government, the expense and length of the litigation to which the Appellant had been exposed, and the background of administrative findings, Their Lordships concluded it would be improper to permit the Government to retain sums taken from the Appellant under orders of the lower courts. They determined the appropriate remedy was to require reimbursement to the Appellant of monies received under those orders and to require payment of the costs the Appellant had incurred (including the costs of the present appeal).
Limitation of the decision's scope: The Court explicitly stated that certain classes of disputed lands (for example, lands claimed to be La-khiraj on the basis of potentially fraudulent grants) would have to be decided on their own facts and "will not be governed by their Lordships' present decision." Thus the Court limited the decision's reach to the circumstances of the litigants before it.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court concluded that the Government (Respondent) should be ordered to repay to the Appellant all sums which the Government had received from him under orders of the Judges below, and should also be ordered to repay the costs which the Appellant had himself incurred, including the costs of the present appeal.

Immediate consequences for the parties: The direct effect is an order for restitution by the Government to the Appellant of monies taken under earlier judicial orders and for payment of the Appellant's costs of litigation (including the present appeal). The decision vindicates the Appellant's expectation that the longstanding settlement should not be disturbed by the Government in the circumstances shown.

Broader implications and precedent: The opinion expressly limits its authority. The Court stated that questions concerning lands that must be decided on their individual circumstances (for example, claims that certain grants were fraudulent or that specific lands were La-khiraj and excepted from settlement) "will have to be decided upon its own circumstances, and will not be governed by their Lordships' present decision." Thus the Court did not purport to establish a sweeping precedent that governs all disputes of this character; rather, it provided a remedial outcome grounded in the specific historical and administrative context before it.

Note: This summary is strictly based on the content of the provided opinion extract. Where the source text did not provide a detailed argument-by-argument account or an exhaustive list of legal propositions attributed to cited authorities, the summary either omits those details or indicates that the information was not available in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

Raja Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government of Bengal (India)

HI tbc tenure of (htrra!!v, :!:e ianda arc hsid under G grant ftom the 'uiing

power, by tile psriorm&oe of rhr defined duty of the G h a r r r l guarding rim

Ghsta UI pnsses.

l-pon the death of the Gi~a:wrsl last seised, the lands descend eniire to B male beir.

as Glinttwal.

'f "$>tan of rhe prinoiplns which induced the Governmert t o reoojnise the ritle

E Fof 'thr Zemiiida:.i in Re&, 88 lnndonmern, and 10 mdke t i e Settlement

with tlizni for a perrnaient s*niioal jcn.ma.

tile Ghatnaiiy ianda 111 c l l i b Zemindrry. Sualr c la im dnmlssed,

for Tennah or police enta?liahrientn.

In r h w mit the Governnmrt of Bengal sought to eetabiirh l i inir riglit to rasarne

and B T E ~ M with rdvenue certain GhntwaIly iandx, oontbinmg 765 lm,$m~, [lOZ]

nrtsched to G h r Foujdar in Tuppa nrrilrnsaeen, in Pergunnah Cords, forming p n t

of the Zeniindarp of Zluruckpora, nituatr ~n the District of Rhngrilpare, in Bchar,

O F ~ ~ S I ~ O I I of Toofany Sing, ab Gh+twal. on the ground that theg were hold

lira], without suffioiant tx!e t a axemptioc lrnm payment of revenue

the progrens of ;he ~ i i i l . t h e purdiarers at publio auchion of that Zeminrlary. Together

with t!ie rigirts of k h n Eaja Rehrnut Ali Khan therein, and they were suhreqiiently

8s such auction purchssere made parries to the wit. The Xhuruckpore enttatri,

includinn tlie Raj m d prinoipality. iihd dcaoended through B long !rna of ancestors

on M& Raja Rehmut, Aii Khon. Tile Zernindary was in tlir puiarsaiuir of thia

fnmily at the iime oi die &coesaion of tlre Ea+ India Company t o the Deasiin? :*

1765, and it hird been .D c11m pasae~sion from a period long anterior rher-to

is fully siated and explained in :!is

the Zemindars of the Khuruekpnre

for the purpose of pmtscting their

and other turbulent people in their

e whole of the lands lying withrn rhe

* Present: The b g h t Hon. T. l'emberto

Knight Bruoe, the Riglit Won. Sir Edwsrd

Turner, and the Rigl,t Hon. Sir b h n Patteran

V I MOORE lND. APP, 106 RAJA LELXXIJXI) SING liAHlDOOR

Mr. I.layd. Q.C., and Mr. Nclnll. ior the Bengal Government.

lirered by

Ac tire eoneluaiair of the argument, judgment WZR postponed. and n,m non de

(July 26 l>551.-The q u e a t i a 19 be de-

criminal jmtiee, to emplq" Ihseee, Csnaonpoes, and Tannahdsrs, or a p d oe forre

But a,hile, BP againar t k Riots and orher inhabitauts wirhin their territories, many

of these ytontarea eiersiied ainiost regal authority, they rere , &E againet tt.e Qovern-

U. BSXQAL (QOVERNXEBT m) [1855] VI IIOORE IND. IPP., iae

mellf, little more rhan stewards 011 admin:slratora. Their 2eir.iiidariss acre granted

t o tirsni o d y irom y e w to pea:; the amoup.t of their jumms, or j e a r i ~ yapinent to

Caleinment, KBB varied, or might be varied, arnually, it vi88 an arhitrkr? sum

priaiid t o thai. purpose by the Zeniindsr

In addition t o rhe police farce rhus kept by the Zewindai, s t the e x g e ~ r e i d tla

Go-orrrnrnen:, and rhioh ~ e e n , ~ t o hare been urunlly very inefficient, private i i i d i ~

vidusis and aommunities were a&uatonrrd to keep watchman for the protection ut

their peraors end propity. under the name of Chokeederr, and v ~ r i u u s other ~.ililitil.

who ware m.16 bv them emaimera. and from whom no allon-anee KBI made in. the

1 . 1 1 ,

GaYernn,e"i

Distrixr were exoased to ranaees of a different deaeriptmii.

IIesrIes tna drsordcr vhicli prevailed generally througL the Provmees, pmti:ulni

The mountain , )I id1

PC. arrr 1

VI llfOOPE IND. APP.. 112 RAJA LEL4BUBD SIYG BAEADOOR

pears, end remain unalterable ior ever, provided iucli canti:ntancc rhauld meet

the appiobation of the Court of Uireciora.

By secxion 31, i t was ordered. that the allowaxocr of the liazces and Canaaiiuoaa.

heretofore paid by the landholdera a b ~ 1 1 BB m v peblm pen~mns hilherto paid

thraueo the hdhoiders . be added io thz amount dr their p m m s , and be in future

paid hr the Coilectnrp 07, ttie pait of Goverrrnent.

The asaossment we.% 10 be excluswe of all La-khirsj lands, ahetliar eir:npt from

8 held 117 public offiv~m and ?rirare swvanti in

ed. bur were to be subpet to awJemellt in com:nan

udarp the eaer.ptian which such landa had pre-

nouily enjoyed b e i i i ~ thus destroyed.

The lwdholders "ere declared responsible far the peaee of them Districts 8 8

tlwctofoie, and w~dre ro aat agreaeblp to auch Regulniions on this head as m q h t be

thereafter enaoted.

[llZ],The juxm %&a to lie fiwd bv the Colleotora on fair and equitable prin-

ciples, with the reservation of the npp;ohatiou of the Boaid of Reoc-me, to w110m

h a -11s to report the groondn of hie decision

The Calleotors, in fixing d e jumma. %*ere to adopt the fallosing as a general

rule:--shat the &verase product of the iond m oornnon psnra be iakm &8 the basis

of tlie Settlement, scd from th ia deductlvrs be made, equal to the Maliiiass and

XureBa, learing the remainder a8 the Iumma. of Gwernnlent.

the ailonarirt mmde to the Zerniiidar for his maintenance, and

the dirbnnements and outgoing^ allowed CO him egainat his receipts fn l l uiider the

The Xalikana

others, the P e r p i n a b oi Gerdc, in nh ic i tt.e Irnda in diepute lie. A xeiy lrrge

by en ancestor of the oeiginol Defendant :n tZeie proceedings.

The ertent ard particulars of these rast estatea, end the naiure of the Ghaiwally

teiiuree, weie well known to the C,o.ierrment of Bengal ai the time when GIE s e t r l ~

iiieiil WBB made. Some yewa hefore in ccnseqoenee of drstuibancirs ahicb had

taken place IT the country during the time ui Iiadir Ali'e father'. rhe Go~emment

Itad found it n e c e , s q io interfere [I151 with B military farce. and liering din-

(we presume from thr extent) the adjoining Distyict upon Gliatwsllp tenure. in

conformit? with the orders of Government.

It &ppenrs from other evidence (in Slr. Sutherland's Report, dated the 8th of

J m e , 1,319) that t h e grants before Xr. Cleaulaad's time 10 the Ghntwals reserisd B

of tba income, and the particulars of the l w d a 10 be errepied from the &messmcnt

'%I. BENGAL (COVERNMEST OF) [ 18351 Yi XOORE IBD. APP.. 114

(far E ~ I B landh called Naiihar lands, i7ei-e excepted,, '+ere tile subject of carre-

spondenoe betden ihc Cdleotor of [I141 the District and ihe President aiid Borrd

of Reveiiue ut For: ITiIliam, and Ciaallg the junimn w & i fixed e i Hr. 65.469. Pa. I O h p

Ir $8 beyond dmpure, sr.d, indeed. in this case has im.1 fairl? admitted, chh t rl!e

the Government detershed slroi.ether to wpprers t I i e T

nmnm, m s i i i l ~ Tied h? the landl?o!dera, and TO rake to

oan. to be asrshiid~ed as ounrenmnt rthtiorro thmughout t le prorincc- Aa riie

landl~olde~s were i n he reh- ied from t h e expense t o which they were subject ?or the

maii:tenance of the foroe nor t o be supprmed, ir was very reniaiiable that, diere

dlowaiices for wch erpenres had ben mede by die Government, i h e j should :io

l o i i ~ e r be coiitinued, and the Government, rherefore, resolved to reeer~c the r v h t of

di&ntinuing them, or (whem lairds had been allured for the p u ~ p m e i of rec&.in.e;

them

10 carry theae arrangements inra &em, R e p l a r m n a X I J Y , aud 1. oi liO4,

r t r s iaeucd.

The preainlilo of Regularion XLII. remtei. in st

which previrlcd, and the iitter inefficiency and ire+

dair employed by the landholderi

Y w m n 1. provide# that the police of 11)

iiiidei lite r~duf i ive cllarge of the officers of

appoiiired t o that trust. The imdovners a

Iishments, Taannhdari ar.d police d i c ~ r s ,

according]? required to discharge them, aiid

pmhiub>red froin entertaining nmh eatsblishmenta i n future.

Bn semioil 4. landowners snd fsrmers &re no l o w e r [116] to be held responsible

for ;obberies ooinnitted on their respectire estate: I'roumion in then madc for

t h e pppommient of a police farce in ditiereiit stations throughout the Proiiueei.

eadl under the charge of & Darocheha OL auperintenhlt. sod -he almle ia subjected

t o the control of the llapirtrarz.

acd niliage aiatcirmen, for these PBI'BODE are hs the 13111 seatnon dedared d q e c t to

th* orders of the Darogha, and bp the 13th section arc ordered t o R

send offender8 to the Daioglm, and afford e r a y iniormntioli te I

BT Reguintion L o? tho asme par, 1792, n tar 1s to t e lcried

of eech police establiehhmcnt. fo r delraving i t 8 e i p n p e s , end the

It is Clear :hat the pollre force hele spoken of is distinct from tlir Chokeediiir

in t lew words (n ii e circular address

U Till report whether the lsiidoanerl of

iia on their jumma. or are in receipt d

VI MOORE IND. UP., 117 RAJA LELANUND SIX14 BhHAUOOR

hold any land ellher i n e 03. or at D reduced revenue, foi the pvrpuars of keeping

up Tannhhdrrs or other p o l m offioers, and n l m your o p m ~ o n whether the rholc,

or n n ~ , and what part of such deducaooa, allawance*, oi. prudure of nuoh innda may

with rqvity be brougtt EO the publio account, in eoniidersmii et the landboldcrs

ibeiq WI ploiiiblted fzoni kacpivg u p estrlhhnirrl. m d Govcnmieot hawig

taken upon itaeli tha char-e of rhc paiice."

enre:thsn this-that the lends reierred 10, are landa riiicli t l ia

pern i t ted by rhe Govwnmant :o hold free from re.re-[l17]-nu?.

ue, for thepurpose o i keeping up Tnnnahdars; not innds ahict,

emit ted other periaoi to hold free from rent, 01 at B reduced

rent, or lands sliish such peraom had a right to hold iree from rent, 01 a t a reduced

m y landa which i e r e in rlir first predioainenr were 60 be r e p o n d t o

t tg the magiatrare, iogether with his opinion. ahether it \vir$ cos-

cnt \ ~ i t h equii? that me w i d e or aiiy p w t of The produce of auclr land should be

ught to the public meount . and further, thai this prar,aion ralatas and is 00"-

6ned to a &sa of o5cera ahom the Zrnunder IS no longer pernitted t o keep

Though aho Decennial Seklement lhad teen made ad to the nereral P i o v m ~ e s of

Hriiar, Rei:gal, az.d Oriaaa under different Reguletioni, and although 86 some of the

istatre the Settlercent had nor been e inre ly concluded in l i O S , I t m e rhiiught right

:n rhat year f ind$ f o establiih i t s peraaneney, and for -hi8 purpore the tdebrardd

Regulstioiia of 1103 were p&iirhrd.

The? were man)- ill namber, and &?far deoiarino rhe Setrlemnent 1

m a n e ~ t , reenacted, w t h mine i.mdifioatioeti r i th "re-pect tt, the Lh

e proriiroos ahieii iind hzei. prmiouaiy niede with re

m .nquiry v m directed to be mide in that year. It 13 ~ ~ n ~ ~ e a m r y ,

o impeat the obrsrvntioi. illready made 88 to :heir efa;-.

not hare heen alrendy resumed, with their opinion of t o w far t t c iilioie or hnY

portion of mch aUonrnees can a-irh -quit? be resumed in consequence of the pi-

pnetors of :ends belne eronersted f rom the charge of k o i p q t i l e peace, es declared

in Regulation SXII. of IiB3:" ahieh Regul&rion had reinseted the piovwtons of

Regulation XLIX. of 1792.

The eanie piorision with respect to Chaekeran nxd Lakhiraj lands r l i i c h had &er1

contsmed m the Regu1i:tiane of 1789 arc repeated in rhme of 1793, namely. thnt t1.e

t,. BENGAL (LOTERXYIEGT OF) [I8551 VIMOOUXIND. APP., uo

Chackern.1 land* 8hould he included in the Sertlcment. and the L a i h i r a i land-

exoludcd from it.

Although horh rhe La-khiraj lends and the Teiiuahdary lands are r e i r r w d for

fur ther inquiry under these Ilegulationr, tliere K ~ B obviouslg s great mitiilozion

betnoen cbem antb r m m t to t t e period o t vhich the decisiou relstiiir to them weht

tu i~

The La-khirnj lands were separate from the Zemindary, and were enoeptcd out of

the Settlemein The validity of the saeeption claimed far them depended on thr

Talidity of the gram under a+ich k wad olaimed. Very man? of the grants r e r e

Believed to be fraudulent: bun each case "86 to depend upon Its own c m u m t n n c e i .

The mvenuration of such oircumrtmces might ocoupy long time. and B discorer?

of grounds of suspio~on might take place si an? period. AB theae landa niere not in

be included in the Sattlemam, no great inconveniezme o d d sriae from delay

[120] Bur with raepeot 10 the allowances f a r d police foms made by t t e Gawrii

ment. whether 111 lsnd or in money. t h e o ~ s e w e quite different. They were in^

cluded in the Se-rlement, and I f any additional charge WFBB to be throvn upon the

landholder in r e p o t of such alloranoer, if w&8 ueceasary that it si-ould be aecer-

tained ne part of the Setrlrment. No difficulty 111 ascertaining the fact could

porsildv ertit. The ameesment had been very recently made, and :he o5rera xho

had &de it must. i n every

Isad $81 I nd not beeii made.

In p u r s x n c e nf thesc Regulations. I r . Diokenren, the Calleuu!r of Bhaghulpme,

nas required t o repurr nherher. in the Rertlement for Khuruckpore any eucli

allonances had been made; and 011 the ? 9 ~ h of April, 1% h e meksi his report iii

the negative. His nords are these (contoined in & letter addressed to the Pieaident

tenures, the extent to which they prevailed in t h s Dmtrict, and ihe made in nliicl~

Board of Reverve

rnsde 011 rhe term8 alreadv stated ihe grantee holds under ~ t , aid fo i more t hun

forfp yenra TO attempt LI umdz :o distnrh it.

It r d d eeem t o he very a:ffiouli, under bunt. c m u m ~ t & n c e s , to p e r m t any p a n

ieaioii to iuppose that any mistrke hac heen'made.

Indeed, bp Regulstian 11. oi 1819, the East India C n m p a n ~ formal!^ ' renni i i i~e

all claim 01, i l i ~ part uf Gmrrninenr to additional rsreiiur from laniia ahirh rgr

included witlxn ihe limits of eatbtes f a r rhioh B 11221 Permanent Ssi-lemeni has

been ooae.uded, at the period when iuoh Retrlenmnt new 60 ooneluded, uhether on the

plea of error or f raud . or nnp pretexc whater-ci, ~ a v i u s . of CDUTEB. mehah eapresslp

excluded f w n the opersrion of the Settlement. '

of the lands TO grmtrd I" be resumed On 8")' alleyation of miaeke, i: mere >ere

YI MOORS Inn. APP., flS RAJA LBLABUND SIRG BAHADOOR

the renure ' ' 8 8 iu sone respects corresponding vlth the anoieni. iiiiiitnry fiefa of

Eumpe, inasmuch 88 oerrsin land8 weic held I,a-khi%, or exenipt from the peg-

meat of rent, end to Be applied aolely to the mehtenance of troops."

There ie no doubt that the remres here spoken of are Charidly tenures. though

B P E ~ U ~ ~ . UT to &under luocey or cattle, or to oreate disturbance;' The second clam

the report dworihrr he, ' The Gliatwaln afsched to tile Xlwruekpare mtaia, a h u

pa? aripulstod rate of rent Em t h e n lands and \nllagrr, beine bound to protect and

*"aid the higlinnyr, to %atoh the .ations at the pasiies, to prpranr tdi&tturbaiicex

6 e q created by che mount&meers, thirrea, and hrglmajcmn. The? liold their

lands in Yirtue of sunuds granted bp the Zamindar of Rhuruekpare. eicepi m n e

x.10 have r-cired t h e h from the fomrer authorities." The reparr tlien proceeds

TO state, ' That when the Zemindar, or Goserniiienz suihority, wirhea to appoini a.

Giiarral to guard the frontiers oi the vi!lagw. it i i h i 8 duty to arowtain the pradLee

of the 11241 villages, ihe quani isr of G!isiwally lands therein, and afrer dcduoting

a ceiti l in m e In the ratio of the mrardi with the Ghaiaaig in lieu nf waees, t o f i ~ a

certain rim to be paid bp the Gh;twals. '

hirer mentioni:ig other desoriptiona of Ghatrrnlly lande, he etatea Itis opinion,

a18 have no right of mheiitanae or propristary inreieat in their lands.

T of poseeafian ss long a6 they periorrn t l ie terms and conditions of

The repmt t i m stares, that at the trms of the Decamid Srttlrment.

the Ghstwaln were not treated &a independenz Taloohdars; thac no Serricmeiit was

made with them, but tEar they ere included in the Setilenent o i the Zelriadar of

whom their lands were held.

generation after generation. ill perpetuirv, subieor, ncvertheieaa, to me payment of

8. ISEN(i.kL (GOVERNMENT OF) [1855: VI XOOEE IND APP.. ill(

ed rent to the Zemiridsi of Beerbhoan,,

tbc main-eninoe oi the publie peace and Support of the pol

Y s p t r a - e has na objoe-ion CO the meseure" (which the Raja had proposed to :ake),

nor is the Cdlmtor opposed to the step". and ir. the repor-" of the Co1:cotorr -0

vvhieh we have alresdy reisrred, it is stared. t i a i it is the proaince of 11271 the R q n

m appiinx and dixmiis rhe Ghamab htlnclid to the Khuruckpore eistes; that lie

uiaalln, h t nor alrevs, makes B renon to tie Goieriirnenr "hen ha does so, "that

the settiemerit rests with him. and he raises or deprea

F. n w r m . (<,OVERBMENT OF) [1J55] n xoom IND. APP. 1 s

ni of proceednip did not allow rhia to be done: and OF. the 31% or

np tlie eoucie of these proceedings, the i ad been raise3 bg tlic

decided in roniormity with hIr A:elnr.ders derisior.. and diemissed [131] the

o:nm of tlie Gouernmeat, and, it is said, chsi rheic decismnr -ere confirmed b? &e

Special Commimoner o n appeal.

Other wits. on the orher hand, of the E B ~ C deaeription. came before Mr. Aka-

L I T ~ X E 01 another Speoia

I r . Moore, specid Commissioner for Celcutia and hlooranedabad.

Thar genrleman directed a n inqttir3- to be made oi the s ~ r e t a r g of the Siiddcr

Board, for the yurpnbe of aacertrining nhetlier t h e Ghatvallp land- l i d bean

exceepd f rom rite Settlement of the Bhuruckpore estatea or not ; and f i n d q rha?

they had not beer. LO excepted. ?e concurred in the opimon of \Ir. D'Dyley, and

ordered t l a & the a i p e d of the Government :o [132] thia and the other tin wits of

die same nature, sliould be diimissed.

Tire Gorernment nas s t i l l diaiatirfied, and on the 19th of September. 1813, ri,ep

Ilerpoucent riiat the? r e r e 6 p a n D

ino.uded in the Settlevent for chat Ze

ndary of hhuruckpore, and aere

nd covered bf the j u m m sasessea

[133] If any c u e should OCCUI >U nlnrh lands of Ghawally tenure, :lrougb lloc,

up",' i t

Vf MOORE IND. AFT., 184

i n their Lord3hipa' opinmn. proparlg falling s x h i n tlie mesning of the Regulario.i,

hare neuertldess been dealt w.th *E suoh. $and hare 10: beeir included -n the

Settlement of 1783, aucb ~ a i r w i l l have to be decided upon its OH.O circumettances.

and w i l l iioi be governed by their Lordships' praaent deoision.

XI& iespoci F" rim mete of the proceedings whhh ham taken plsre, their

Lorddt~pa do no: doub; that the Renn~ai t h e r n r n e n t , in bringing iorwvard thi3 claim.

have aored under B senw of public dut?, but i t i . an at teupt to disturb. upon in-

iofhe.ent grounds, a Settlement winch aubnirted without dispute for above f a t ?

?car$, during all abich time the rvh t to disturb it. if i t exists a t 811, eriried u,itli s i

rnucli force us %hen the proceedin& rere instituted. The claim hes bee

in after sererai decisions against the Gorarnment by their ossn officer

J tdgrs; the decree in their favour l ia i been finall? obtained upon gruun

from those OZI ahich it WCB originall: sought. and rhe Appellant has been exposed

to R long and rnoL eipenrive litigation Under rhese eircumstonces, Their r.ordr!lips

think that the7 Rhauld do but imperiecr jiistice. if they d id not humbly raom:oeod

t o Hei Majertp that tbe Respondent iliould be ordered to repap to the Appel ant all

vile PO%S \il,ich +he? hare rweiwd from him under orders of the .Judges bclou, and

rlmuld also be ordered to ~ R J tc him t h e east& which he hna Limself illcurred a n T i m e

prxeidingr. inihding the costs of ri le p a e n t appeal.

SUSBERU'ASJEE PESTONJEE

0j"b

I d

885,

L R . 12 Ind. dpp. 914.j

ERWASJEE PESTOSJEE and Oihers,-AZrpeNmts: NEER M1600-

h H l X WULLCU MEER SUDXOOUEEX KHAS BAHADOOE-

In order to errble the Zillah C'omt, under Born. Reg. VIL, of 13fi. to give

an a m r d the force of B decree of Cour t . file deed of submimoi. t i i at bitratio ,

n m r contain all rhe conditione re uiicd hy iliac Regulation.

f 1827, enaota. among other thinpe, that

tlie time within wiiioh the or\.wd i s i o be

give^:." S deed of aubrnirrion t o arbitration o n t c n e d no pro>isiun for rbr

time when the awsrd w;as to be made bv the arbi t ra tor : held to be had, and

m a v m d made under it, ahich h d been ordeied ! o be eiiioreed 88

a decree of Coort, directed to be taken off the file, as the Court had

no iurisdictia:, e r c e ~ r upon the fulfilment of the rewirementh of ihe . .

Reghntion.

The parol omeent o i the uartiea 10 t i l e drsd of submiarian hefare :he aibitiator

to waiv; such o m m m ri l l &t cure the deiect.

I n this appeal the question r a x d r a p , whether an n t a r d of Mr. Frere, the a p t

of the Bombny Government a t Sum:, made upon n suhrn i4on to arbitiatiori by rhe

Sppellanti m.d Respondent, vas within rhe proTisions of t t e Boniba?- Regularion,

30 7'11. of 1527, so 88 to entitle it :o the fcrcc of n decree of Court, or iiad rimrflwi

mly of sn ordinary avard. ThsOrder of the Sadder Dewanny C o w i appealed lrom.

directed the sward to be rnloreed 86 a decree of Court against the Appellaiirs.

11351 The dppelienis were I'arsee barkerr reridin, 8% S w a t . The Respondent

was :be Hukriiee of Surst. ar.d b r v r t w of I d rank az?d relations hi^ tii the Sawob -~ ~~~ -~~~~~~ . - . .. . .

*Prevent: The Righi Hon. T. Pemberran h i g h , the Right Hm. Lord Justice

Knight Rruee. thc Right Hon. Sir Edaard R p n , and the Right Hon. Sir John

Patre.,".

Raja Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government of Bengal (India)

Structured Summary of Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Raja Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Government of Bengal (India)

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience