Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The interest of Bhoja has descended to the defendant company and the admission binds the company. Admission to the same effect in 1926 is made in Ex. 9, p. 206, (p. 2). Reference is made to similar admissions made after suit by the Thakurs: Ex. J, 28th March 1929, (p. 251, p. 2), Ex K, 29th January 1929, (p. 245, p. 2). It is true what a man admits to be true must reasonably be presumed to be so and this admission shifts the burden on to the respondent: see Chandra Kunwar v. Narpat Singh (1907) 29 All 184. In this view we have to determine whether the defendants have effectually discharged the burden of showing that the mouza is not part of the revenue paying estate of the Raja but that it is revenue free grant of the Thakurs. The defendants seek to discharge the burden by three documents of very ancient date. They first rely on the list of Bazezamin lands (Ex. P-l) which they say is equivalent to Lakheraj lands. The document is at p. 5, p. 2 of the printed paper book. It is a certified copy of Terij of Baje Zamin (lands) for the year 1178 B.S., i.e. 1771 A.D. The respondent defendant contend, that Bazezamin means lakheraj land and that this is a return of lakheraj lands which is filed in the Collectorate under the provisions of Regulation 1769 and in this return at p. 16 mouza Monoharbahal is shown as a mouza in Pargana Shergura carrying an annual jama of Rs. 200; on the other hand it is contended for the appellant that the word Bazezamin means miscellaneous lands and the words Bajey Asarnir Khuchran Debuttar (these words are in the original) against 70 3/16 villages (in p. 5) shows that these are the petty debuttar of miscellaneous kind belonging to Assamis or tenants of the Raj who as tenants of the Raj would have no underground rights in the absence of express reservation of these rights in the grant. In other words the list is the list of rent free grants from Zemindar of Panchakote according to the contention of the appellant.

11. There are the following special instructions with reference to charitable or religious donations (see p. 183):

As to charitable or religious donations the lands so sequestered are to be estimated with regard to their extent, production and value.

12. Apparently Ex. F-1 was filed in pursuance of the regulation on behalf of the zamindar of Panchakote. The zamindars have enjoyed considerable tracts rent fee on various pretences and for various purposes (see p. 175 of Colebrooke's supplements) and the Supervisors were to investigate into the value of these lands. Reference was made to Philip's Land Tenures-Tagore Lectures p. 212-where the learned author states that Baze zamin lands mean land paying no revenue, to exchequer." In a revenue regulation enacted on 31st May 1782 it is recognized that for sometime past the attention of Government has been drawn to Baze zamin or lands exempt from the payment of revenue (see p. 224 Colebrooke's supplement to his Digest). It is pointed out that "such lands exist to a very considerable degree is well known" and further that partial attempts have been made at different periods to ascertain the amount and annual value of the Baze zamin lands but no general register had been formed of them, and complaint. It is argued for the appellant that the word "Baze zamin" might have acquired the technical meaning of revenue free lands in 1782 several years after the Terij which was filed in 1771 and the same technical meaning cannot be attributed to the document which was filed eleven years before. But this comment loses force when we find the regulation stating that such lands exist to a considerable degree is well known and has drawn the attention of Government for a considerable number of years.

13. The wore Baze zamin has been used in the sense of revenue free grants in Section 48, Regulation 9 of 1793. It is also to be noticed that this Terij was filed in the Pachete case which went up before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and is reported in Sccy. of State v. Jyoti Prosad Singh Deo 1926 PC 41. At p. 112(of 53 I A) their Lordships speaking of this return say this:

But the Raja has made a previous return of the Baze zamin or Lakheraj lands within the zamindari in 1771.

18. It has already been stated that the appellant laid stress on the circumstance that if Monoharbahal was a lakheraj village it would not have escaped the attention of Government seeing that it was an invalid lakheraj consisting of an area far in excess of 100 bighas. It is impossible, it was argued, that the existence of a village of the extent of over 500 acres paying no revenue to Government could have been unknown to the revenue authorities. This is no doubt a matter which requires consideration. It appears it is true from Colebrookes (supplement to) at pp. 224 and 485 that under the regulation of 31st May 1782 and of 26th August 1783 respectively that such invalid lakheraj lands were directed to be resumed, and a register was directed to be made of such lands. This was however a pious wish and the register was never prepared. The East India Company was doing its best to get rid of this evil of large alienation of public revenue but the task was a hopeless one, and many invalid lakheraj lands were not resumed: see Philip's Tagore Lectures-pp. 255 to 258. It is possible that the village was not resumed because it was rent free Debuttar but all these speculations are of no avail seeing that the list of 1771 shows that they are Baze Zamin of Lakheraj (revenue free lands). The right of the Government to assess them to Government revenue has become barred by the lapse of 60 years: see Maharajadhiraj Mahatab Chand Bahadur v. Bengal Government (1846-50) 4 MIA 466 (502 et seq). It was because Monohar Bahal village was revenue free village that it was withdrawn for settlement for under Section 36, Regn. 8 of 1793. By virtue of the said section the assessment is to be fixed exclusive and independent of all existing lakheraj lands, that is lands exempt from the public revenue. Such lands are therefore in effect withdrawn from the settlement land the zamindar though these lands might be locally situate within his district, could claim no title therein by virtue of the settlement: see the observations of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debi 1917 PC 8.