1855. RAJA LELANUND SING attached to Ghat Foujdar in Tuppa Dhumsaeen, in Pergunnah Gorda, forming part of the Zemindary of Khuruckpore, situate in the District of Bhagulpore, in BAHADOOR Behar, in the possession of Toofany Sing, as Ghatwal, on the ground that they were held as La-khiraj, without sufficient title to exemption from payment of υ. THE BENGAL GOVERNMENT. revenue. At the time when this suit was commenced, Maha Raja Rehmut Ali Khan was the Zemindar in possession of an extensive Zemindary and principality called the Khuruckpore estates, within which the lands in question were situate, and of which they had always formed part. Raja Biddianund Sing, since deceased, represented by the present Appellant, his son and heir, and one Balnath Sahoo, became during the progress of the suit the purchasers at public auction of that Zemindary, together with the rights of Maha Raja Rehmut Ali Khan therein, and they were subsequently as such auction purchasers made parties to the suit. The Khuruckpore estates, including the Raj and principality, had descended through a long line of ancestors on Maha Raja Rehmut Ali Khan. The Zemindary was in the possession of this family at the time of the accession of the East India Company to the Dewanny in 1765, and it had been in their possession from a period long anterior thereto. The origin and nature of Ghatwal tenure is fully stated and explained in the judgment. It appears that long before 1765, the Zemindars of the Khuruckpore estates had created certain Ghatwally tenures for the purpose of protecting their Zemindary from the attacks of mountaineers and other turbulent people in their neighbourhood; and those tenures embraced the whole of the lands lying within the village of Dhum saeen, of which the lands in question had always formed part, as well as lands in other villages belonging to and also forming part of the Khuruckpore estates. These lands, held in Ghatwally tenure, were apportioned and attached by the Zemindar to particular Ghats, or passes, including the Foujdar Ghat, to which were apportioned and attached, amongst other lands, the 755 beghas of land in question. At the same time persons were selected and appointed by the Zemindar to perform the duties of Ghatwals at those several Ghats, and as such to act as the servants and dependants of the Zemindary for the time being; and among those Ghatwals, the Zemindar, from time to time, allotted and apportioned the lands, which were held by them on condition of their performing those duties in lieu of wages, but subject also to the payment of a fixed rate of rent to the Zemindar for and in respect of the cultivated land allotted to them, and for and in respect of the land which they might thereafter bring into cultivation. These Ghatwals were appointed, and their lands were at the same time granted to them by formal sunuds and grants made and executed by the Zemindars, who thereby reserved to themselves the power of dimissing such Ghatwals, and appointing others in their stead as they might see fit, or if they failed to perform efficiently the services required of them. Thus a permanent guard was established under the absolute control of the Zemindar for the protection of his Zemindary and the Ryots, as well as travellers and wayfarers, according to the ancient custom of the country, and which custom still prevails throughout those Districts of India in immediate proximity to the mountain ranges, as a security against the inroads and at 1855. RAJA LELANUND SING BAHADOOR บ. THE BENGAL GOVERNMENT. 1855. RAJA LELANUND SING BAHADOOR บ. THE BENGAL GOVERNMENT. tacks of the mountaineers and other turbulent people banded together for the purposes of robbery and plunder. The proceedings out of which this appeal arose were commenced in the year 1836, by the Sudder Board of Revenue giving instructions to Mr. Travers, the Special Deputy Collector of the District of Bhagulpore, to investigate the question of the Ghatwally tenures, and the right of Government to revenue from the lands held by Ghatwals in his District. Mr. Travers accordingly proceeded to make the inquiry, and, in May, 1838, eleven suits were instituted before him on behalf of Government against different Ghatwals to assert the Government's right to assess the Ghatwally lands in Tuppa Dhumsaeen with revenue. In one of these suits, Toofany Sing of Ghat Foujdar was the Defendant, and the question there raised and which was the subject of this appeal, was the right of the Government to attach and resume for non-payment of revenue these 755 beghas of land. The proceedings, to which Toofany Sing was a party, involved the same question as that in the ten other suits, and the question with regard to them was agreed to be determined by the result of his suit. A summary of the various proceedings before the Collector and Special Commissioners, and their respective decrees, will be found in their Lordships' judgment. By a final decree, dated the 27th of June, 1845, made by the Special Commissioner, Mr. Moore, in favour of the Government, these lands were directed to be resumed and assessed under cl. 4, sec. 8, Reg. I. of 1793, as being granted for police establish ments. The present appeal was from this decree. 1855. RAJA LELANUND SING BAHADOOR V. THE BENGAL At the hearing, two grounds were taken by the Appellant against the Government's right of resumption. First, that Ghatwally lands were by the nature of their tenure held by, and formed part of, the Zemindary of Khuruckpore, and were included in the De- GOVERNMENT. cennial Settlement made between the Zemindar and Government in 1790, by which the Zemindary of Khuruckpore was assessed at a fixed jumma, which Settlement was made permanent by Ben. Reg. I. of 1793, and that such Settlement could not now be reopened. Second, that even if these lands were not included in the Permanent Settlement, they were exempt from resumption for taxation by the State, as they had been held for sixty years, from the date of the Company's accession to the Dewanny, without paying rent, which operated as a prescriptive bar to the Government's right to resume. The Bengal Government relied upon their right to resume and assess these lands under Ben. Reg. I. of 1793, sec. 8, cl. 4, and contended, that previously to the passing of that Regulation, respecting the Permanent Settlement of the revenue, the produce of the Ghatwally lands was appropriated by the Zemindar to the maintenance of the Tannah, or police establishments; and by that Regulation, in consequence of the Government having taken upon itself the charge of maintaining the police of the country, lands of that tenure were made liable to assessment of revenue, in addition to the jumma assessed on the Zemindary by the Permanent Settlement, and that the jumma assessed by the Permanent Settle VOL. VI. N 1855. RAJA LELANUND ment on the Zemindary of Khuruckpore, in fact, included no sum assessed in respect of the produce appropriated from these lands to the maintenance BAHADOOR of the police establishments. SING v. THE BENGAL GOVERNMENT. The authorities referred to on these points were:As to the nature and tenure of Ghatwally lands, Hurlal Sing v. Jorawum Singh (a). Upon the right of the Government to resume, Ben. Regs. LXXII., sec. 31 of 1791, XLIX. of 1792, secs. 1, 2; L. of 1792, sec. 17; I. of 1793, sec. 8, cl. 4; VIII. of 1793, secs. 36 & 41; XXII. of 1793, sec. 2; XXIII. of 1793, sec. 36; XXVII. of 1793, sec. 5, cl. 4; XXV. of 1803, XXIX. of 1814, II. of 1819; IX. of 1825; and 2 Harrington's Analysis, p. 236. And, that the Government's claim was barred by prescription, Maha Raja Dheeraj Raja Mahatab Chund Bahadoor v. The Bengal Government (b), Ben. Regs., II. of 1805, sec. 2, cl. 2, and II. of 1819. Mr. R. Palmer, Q. C., and Mr. Leith, for the Mr. Wigram, Q. C., Mr. Lloyd, Q. C., and Mr. At the conclusion of the argument, judgment was 25th July, postponed, and was now delivered by 1855. The Right Hon. T. PEMBERTON LEIGH: The question to be decided in this case is the validity of a claim made by the East India Company to resume, for the purposes of revenue assessment, (a) 6 Ben. Sud. Dew. Rep. 169. (b) 4 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 466. |