Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1925Cal921,(1925)ILR52Cal573
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. We are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that, in order to support a conviction under Section 78 of the Bengal Embankment Act of 1882, on the ground that the accused by any wilful act destroyed or diminished the efficiency of an embankment, it is necessary that there should be a finding that the accused acted mala fide. This section of the statute appears to make punishable acts endangering embankments even when the offender had no mens rea. The learned Sessions Jqdge appears to have read the section as if the words were 'wilfully destroys or diminishes the efficiency of such embankment.' The qualification is not in respect of the ultimate result of the act, but the act itself. In this case it cannot be denied that the petitioner wilfully excavated and extended his tank, and it is found that the result of that was to injure the public embankment. This is sufficient to support the conviction. Let the papers be returned....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 70Ind.Cas.784
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money paid by them Proprietors of an estate under the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The defendants are tenure-holders under the plaintiffs, and the question in controversy is, whether tie plaintiffs are entitled to recover the disputed amount in one sum from the defendants The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover only a portion of the sum darned. The moment was made by the plaintiffs pursuant order made by the Collector under the provisions of the Statute, There is no room for dispute that the order of the Collector was erroneous, inasmuch as, it did not specify the instalments in which the same was payable to the Government,' What we have to consider is whether the validity of the order of the Collector can be questioned before the Civil Court in this litigation and for this purpose we must refer to the relevant sections of the Bengal Embankment Act.2. Section 54 provides that the costs are t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1924Cal154
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit for recovery of money paid by them as proprietors of an estate under the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The defendants are tenure-holders under the plaintiffs, and the question in controversy is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the disputed amount in one sum from the defendants. The Courts below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover only a portion of the sum claimed. The payment was made by the plaintiffs pursuant to an order made by the Collector under the provisions of the statute. There is no room for dispute that the order of the Collector was erroneous, inasmuch as it did not specify the instalments in which the same was payable to the Government. What we have to consider is whether the validity of the order of the Collector can be questioned before the Civil Court in this litigation; for this purpose, we must refer to the relevant sections of the Bengal Embankment Act.2. Section 54 provides...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal761,84Ind.Cas.22
1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Walmsley in an Appeal from Appellate Decree arising out of a suit for confirmation of possession of land upon establishment of title. The subject matter of the litigation is the site of an old embankment on the west bank of the river Hugli which was entered as No. 73 in Schedule. D to the Bengal Embankment Act, 1873. The embankment was abandoned, and on the 21st February 1912, the Collector conveyed the site to the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The defendants are the proprietors of estate No. 302, and the disputed land is admittedly included within the ambit of their estate. The plaintiffs based their claim on the conveyance executed by the Collector. The defendants disputed the validity of the transfer as made in contravention of Section 87 of the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a valid title and dismissed the suit Upon appeal, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1921Cal209,65Ind.Cas.656
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J. 1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the Special Judge of Midnapore complained of should not be set aside, or why such other or further order should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.2. The matter arose in respect of certain applications which were made by the landlords for the settlement of, fair rents under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The Revenue Officer found that the defendants in these cases were ordinary occupancy raiyats. He also found on a comparison of the prices of staple food crops that the maximum enhancement under Section 32(b) was 4 annas in the rupee. He, however, refused to allow the landlords any enhancement on the ground that the lands were subject to inundation as there was no embankment on the river Cossaye and that the crops were damage and the rents were already high.4. The Special Judge who heard the, appeal, after reciting what the Revenue Officer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1919)ILR46Cal825
Richardson and shams-ul-Huda, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 76(b) of the Bengal Embankment Act (Act II of 1882) on the ground that, within an area included in a prohibitory notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, be had, without the previous permission of the Collector, added to an existing embankment. For this offence he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. An order has also been made under Section 79 directing him to remove the added portion of the embankment.2. It is contended on his behalf by his learned Counsel that the conviction is bad:--first, because there is no proof on the record that a notification covering the land, on which the embankment stands, was issued under Section 6; secondly, because the petitioner holds the land under a lease from the Government requiring him to erect embankments and maintain them; thirdly, because the petitioner being an occupancy raiyat has statutory rights under the Bengal Tenancy Act which i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1919Cal669,50Ind.Cas.669
1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted under Section 76(6) of the Bengal Embankment Act (II of 1882), on the ground that within an area included in a prohibitory notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, he had without the previous permission of the Collector added to an existing embankment. For this offence he has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. An order has also been made under Section 79 directing him to remove the added portion of the embankment.2. It is contended on his behalf by his learned Counsel that the conviction is bad Firstly, because there is no proof on the record that a notification covering the land on which the embankment stands was issued under Section 6.3. Secondly, because the petitioner holds, the land under a lease from the Government requiring him to erect embankments and maintain them.4. Thirdly, because the petitioner, being an occupancy raiyat, has statutory right under the Bengal Tenancy Act which includes the right to erect, or add ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 44Ind.Cas.497a
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in a suit against the Secretary of State and relates to a charge described as peshkosh which the Collector has levied from the plaintiffs in execution of a certificate issued under the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act I of 1895). The plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the levy of peshkosh is illegal and they further pray for the cancellation of the certificate, for the refund of the amount levied thereunder and for a perpetual injunction restraining the Secretary of State from levying peshkosh in future.2. It appears that there are two estates, known as Jalamutha and Majnamutha in the District of Midnapore, the history of which is adverted to in the judgments of the Courts below.3. At the time of the Permanent Settlement the proprietors refused to accept the settlements offered to them and the estates have ever since been temporarily settled. Their situation renders them liable to inundation and grambheries or village embankments ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 45Ind.Cas.43
1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council in a suit instituted by the respondent under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act for declaration that he is an occupancy raiyat in respect of the subject-matter of the litigation and for incidental reliefs. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit and has held that the plaintiff is not a tenure-holder but an occupancy raiyat and that the existing rent which the plaintiff was liable to pay before the last survey and settlement proceedings was fair and equitable. The substantial question in controversy, consequently, is whether the plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat as he alleges, or whether he is a tenure holder as recorded by the Revenue Authorities. The root of the title of the plaintiff is an amalnamah granted on the 19th June 1868 to his father by Lal Chand Bhuia, the then settlement-holder under the Government. This document recites that the mauzas mentioned were settled with the grantee for bringing them under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1919)ILR46Cal160
Mookerjee and Walmsley, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State for India in Council in a suit instituted by the respondent under Section 104H of the Bengal Tenancy Act for declaration that he is an occupancy raiyat in respect of the subject matter of the litigation and for incidental reliefs. The Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit and has held that the plaintiff is not a tenure-holder but an occupancy raiyat and that the existing rent which the plaintiff was liable to pay before the last survey and settlement proceedings was fair and equitable. The substantial question in controversy, consequently, is whether the plaintiff is an occupancy raiyat as he alleges or whether he is a tenure-holder as recorded by the revenue authorities. The root of the title of the plaintiff is an amalnamah granted on the 19th June 1868 to his father by Lal Chand Bhuia, the then settlement holder under the Government. This document recites that the mouzahs mentioned were settled with the grant...
Tag this Judgment!