Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1914)ILR41Cal130
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit whereby the plaintiffs seek to vindicate a right which they claim under a putni lease in their favour executed in 1870. By that document it was provided on the part of the zemindar as follows: 'We (that is the zemindars) shall pay the Government revenue, poolbundi and dak cesses, you having nothing to do with the same.' The Embankment Acts in force at that time were XXXII of 1855 (Government of India) and Act VII of 1866 (Government of Bengal), and for the purposes of this argument it has been assumed that the obligation in respect of embankment charges was on the zemindars at that time. Whether that was so under Act VII of 1866 in all cases we need not now determine, but we will assume, for the purpose of this case, the correctness of the view that the stipulation which I have read gave practical effect to the state of the law as it then stood. These two Acts have been repealed, and that now in force is Act II of 1882 of the Bengal Legislature. There are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal3
Panckridge, J.1. A point of some importance is raised by this Rule. That point is indicated by ground 3 which is in the following terms:For that in the absence of any evidence as to the original height of the bundh the conviction is bad in law.2. It appears that petitioner 23, Pulin Behari Dutt is one of the owners of an embankment called the Taladiha zamindari embankment which is situated in an area in respect of which a notification has been made under Section 6, Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The date of this notification is 11th March 1901. In 1926 there were floods of exceptional gravity in the District of Midnapur; as a result of these floods the embankment was breached at several places. Petitioner 23 and also some of his tenants applied to the Collector for permission to repair the bund up to the old level. The Collector on 5th April 1928, gave permission to repair the breaches up to the level of 19'. A further application was made on 4th January 1929 to the Collector asking him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1936Cal686,165Ind.Cas.847
Cunliffe, J.1. We granted this rule on a point of law based upon the principle of autrefois acquit laid down in Section 403, Criminal P. C. The petitioner was originally tried for an offence under Section 283, Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine with a term of imprisonment in default of the fine. Section 283 is widely drawn, Section dealing with criminal acts causing danger to property, obstruction or injury to persons in a public highway or in a public line of navigation. After that conviction, the petitioner went up on appeal. On appeal, he was acquitted somewhat technically perhaps on the ground that the place which he had obstructed was not a navigable river as during considerable portions of the year, it consisted of a dry bed and the learned appellate Court Judge relied on a definition of 'navigable river' laid down in the Government Estates Manual. Whether the learned Judge was right in specifically relying upon a definition which I should regard as being rather more executi...
Tag this Judgment!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 : 118Ind.Cas.355
1. The petitioners before us have been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of 24-Parganas by his order, dated the 29th February, 1928, under Section 76 (a) of the Bengal Embankment Act (II of 1882) and have each been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months, and they have been further directed under Section 79 of the said Act to remove a certain cross dam within one month from the date of the order in question. There were two appeals to the Sessions Judge by the two petitioners, but the Sessions Judge by his order, dated the 10th April, 1928, dismissed the said appeals.2. The facts involved in this application, shortly stated, are as follows: A complaint was preferred by the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tolly's Nulla Sub-Division, to the effect that the petitioners had erected a bund across a khal known as the Bantola khal and that the said bund had prejudicially affected the Bidyadhari river. The petitioners were t...
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 : AIR1934Cal836,153Ind.Cas.771
ORDERM.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case petitioner Lakshmi Narain Auddy of Joraghat, Chinsurah, has been convicted Under Section 76(b), Bengal Embankment Act 2 of 1882, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25, in default, to imprisonment for one month. He made a petition Under Section 435 to the Sessions Judge and the Sessions Judge has sent a letter of reference recommending that the conviction be sat aside on the ground that the trying Magistrate was wrong to hold that the river Ganges came within the prohibited area notified by the Government in its notification No. 28-I of 5th September 1929. Mr. N. K. Basu has appeared in support of the reference.2. The grounds taken by Mr. Basu on behalf of the petitioner are (1) as stated by the Sessions Judge, that the notification of 5th September 1929 does not apply to the river Ganges at Hooghli; (2) that the conviction is wrong inasmuch as Section 76 does not apply to this part of the river having regard to the provisions of Section 91, Bengal Embankm...
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 : (1885)ILR11Cal570
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. In these two cases the petitioners before us have been convicted under Section 76,* Clause (b) of Beng. Act II of 1882, called the Bengal Embankment Act, 1882. The facts proved against the petitioners are, that they have repaired existing embankments so as to make them higher, and probably broader, than they were before, and it was also proved that they did these acts without taking the previous permission of the Collector as required by Clause (6) of Section 76. It is further found by the Magistrate that under Section 6 of the Act, the Lieutenant-Governor, by a notification, declared that the tracts within which these embankments exist, are tracts within which the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 76 shall take effect. It is stated in the affidavit, and not contradicted in any way, that no proclamation and general notice of this declaration under Section 6 was published in the manner prescribed in Section 80 of the Act.2. There is no finding in the Magistrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1953Cal653
Guha Ray, J. 1. The appellants are the joint receivers of the Auddy Estate, Chetla, who are the settlement holders from the Government in respect of certain Sundarban lands, known as Mouza Sridharnagore in P. S. Mathurapore in the district of 24-Parganas. One of the terms of the lease is that the lessees are responsible for the efficient maintenance of the existing embankments, sluice gates, etc. to the standard which is necessary for keeping the lot under cultivation and it was open to the Collector, in whose favour the lease was executed, to give notice to the lessees calling upon them to remedy the breach of any ' condition including the condition relating to the efficient maintenance of the embankment. 2. On 4-5-1950, on receipt of a telegram from a number of cultivating tenants of the said lot, the Collector called for a report from the Assistant Engineer and the report of the Assistant Engineer, printed at page 11 of the paper book, is to the effect that there were several breach...
Tag this Judgment!