Calcutta High Court
Lalu Dome And Anr. vs Bejoy Chand Mahatap on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: 33IND. CAS.553
JUDGMENT
1. Two points arise in this appeal. One is as to the location and identity of the parcels. On that there has been a finding of fact by the lower Appellate Court on an issue sent down, which is conclusive against the present appellants and there is no ground on which we can interfere.
2. It is contended, however, that the land in suit is simanadari land and not chaukidari chakran land, and, therefore, it is said Act VI of 1870, B.C. does not apply. The learned Vakils who appear before us agreed on this, that if the Act does not apply then the appellants are entitled to succeed, and if the Act applies then the appellants must fail. Now, the words chaukidari chakran lands, by the express provisions of the Act, "mean lands which may have been assigned, otherwise than under a temporary settlement, for the maintenance of the officer who may have been bound to keep watch in any village and report crime to the Police and in respect to which such officer may be at the time of the passing of this Act liable to render service to a zemindar." Whether this land was simanadari or chaukidari chakran was left undecided by the lower Appellate Court. This, we think, is to be regretted.
3. But we have the authority of the Bengal District Gazetteer for Bankura that "in Thanas Indas and Kotalpur, there are a body of men called simanadars, who perform the duties of chaukidars. They have grants of lands in lieu of wages; but in some instance these service lands have been resumed under Act VI of 1870." We are entitled to use this book of reference for the purpose of seeing what the duties of simanadars are, that is to say, whether their duties correspond with those of which description is given in Section 1 of the Chaukidari Chakran Land Act. What is stated in the Gazetteer shows that in Thana Indas, which is the thana with which we are concerned in this case, the simanadars perform those duties which are described in Section 1 of the Act. If they perform those duties it does not matter in the slightest what they may be called. The definition requires that the duties should be of a particular character. That being so, we must hold that Act VI of 1870 applies. It perhaps may seem a hard case on the appellants before us, but there is no escape from it. Certainly there is no escape from it in the suggestion of occupancy right. It is made for the first time in this Court.
4. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with costs.