Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)Section 37 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Sm. Ashamayi Basu, W/O Charu Chandra ... vs Baranagore Jute Factory Co. Ltd. And ... on 19 May, 1939
31. Accordingly, we hold that the patni interest in question in this case, so far as it is under Touzi No. 335 is an under-tenure in that estate within the meaning of Section 37 and annullable as such. It is a point in favour of this view that the only alternative possible without contravening the Judicial Committee's observations would be to class it as an encumbrance, the result of which would be to make it void instead of voidable. Our view therefore gives it some measure of protection, however precarious, rather than none at all. It may not be irrelevant to point out that the preamble to Act 11 of 1869 speaks of providing for registration of dependent taluks and of protecting the holders of registered under, tenures. Therefore, where an interest falls outside the scope of the sections relating to registration as in the present case no argument for its effective or assured, protection can be drawn from the preamble. Our answers to the two questions referred to us are therefore as follows : (1) Whether a purchaser of an entire estate in the permanently settled districts of Bengal sold for arrears of revenue due on account of the same can annul an under-tenure which is created under the said estate as well as other estates so far as it lies within the estate sold.... Yes. (2) Is the case in Ashamoyi Basu v. Baranagore Jute Factory, Ltd. reported in ('38) 70 C.L.J. 34 correctly decided?.... No. On the view we have taken, the appeal out of which this Reference has arisen must be dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs in all Courts.
Mahamad Guran Choukidar (Chowngdar In ... vs Basarat Ali And Anr. on 20 August, 1919
13. The later case in Mahamed Guran v. Basarat Ali ('20) 7 A.I.R. 1920 Cal. 920 purports to follow the earlier case just considered, but the actual facts are not very clear. The suit was for recovery of khas possession of lands appertaining to a taraf, the plaintiff being the grantee of a sadar patni taluka right with the rights of an auction purchaser, apparently in the whole taraf. The Munsif held that some of the dags which were not included in the plaintiff's patni appertained to some other mahals, and he granted a decree for annulment of the interest of the defendants as to the rest.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
The Bengal Land-Revenue Sales Act, 1859
Sushila Sundari Choudhurani vs Tarak Chandra Roy Choudhuri And Ors. on 16 March, 1926
14. This case was discussed in Kamal Kumari Choudhurani v. Chandra Roy ('98) 2 C.W.N. 229 with reference to the need for making the co-owners parties to the suit, and distinguished on the ground that in the former case actual khas possession of the land was desired, while in the later case mere power for joint collection of rent was prayed for. Thus prior to the recent case of 1936 this appears to be the only one clearly dealing with facts similar to those in the present case relating to a tenure under more than one estate, and the decision favours the view that in such a case annulment of that portion of the tenure which is held under the estate sold for arrears of revenue can be made. Prom the history of the sale laws it would be indeed strange if proprietors of estates could create an interest which would defeat the prime object thereof, namely the safeguarding of the public revenues. Enforcement of collection of the revenue by means of sale of estates was introduced by the British, and a fundamental necessity of the provision for such enforcement by sale of estate is that what is sold shall be the estate originally created unchanged except as allowed by the law. Article 6 of the Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1 of 1793, lays down the provision for sale for default and in Article 9 of the same regulation it is laid down that: