LexMAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR versus THAKUR MANMOHAN DEO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A • ·B c ... / .~ D .~ E .. ' H MAHARAJA PRATAP SINGH BAHADUR v. THAKUR MANMOHAN DEO AND ORS. F'ebruary 28, 1966 (K. SUBBA RAo, AND V. RAMASAWAMI, JJ.J Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 (Act V of 1859), ss. 1 and 'lr-The Court of Wards Att, 1870 (Act IV of 1870), ss. 8, 9, 13-Provisions of former Act in respect of long leases of ghatwa(i lands in conflict wifh pro- visions of latter Act-Whether conditions in both Acts to be satrsfied- Lease of ghatwali estate land in perpetuity-Lease executed by Deputy Commissioner-Presumption of valid execution under s. 114 Indian Evi- dence Act, 1872. A lease in perpetuity in respect of certain lands belonging to a ghat- wali estate situated in the area of present West Bengal was granted in 1873 of the predecessors-in-interest Of the appellant for the purpot3e or erecting dwelling houses. The lease was executed on behalf of the Estate, which was under the management of the Court of Wards, by the Deputy Commissioner of Santa! Pargana. In 1952 the lease was challenged by the Ghatwal as being void. According to the Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act 1859 (Act V of 1859) such a·lease could be executed by the Court or Wards for certain specified purposes which included the erection of dwelling houses. Under the Court of Wards Act 1870 (Act IV of 1870) 1tte Court of Wards could grant such a lease with the &auction of the Board of Revenue. The trial court held that the lease was void as it was not sanctioned by the Board of Revenue. 1he High Court held that the case must be decided on the provisions of Act V of 1859 which was a special Act overriding the general Act i.e., Act IV of 1870. According to the High Court the lease was void under Act V of 1859 because it was not execut- ed by the Court of Wards. Even under Act IV of 1870 it was void for want of sanction of the Board of Revenue. In appeal to this Court, HELD : The lease was valid. (i) The Bengal Ghatwali Lands Act, 1859 was a special Act dealing with gbatwali lands. The Court of Wards Act, 1870 was a general enact- ment. On the principle generalia specialibus non derogant the provisions of . the former Act in respect of leases of ghatwali lands would prevail over the provisions of the latter Act regarding lease of land under the management of the Court of Wards. [669 B-C] (ii) The lease in question was for the purpose of raising dwelling houses and thus one of the conditions in s. 2 of the Act of 1859 was satis- fi:ed. The other condition that the lease must be executed by the Court of Wards was also satisfied in the case inasmuch as under s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act the official act of execution of the lease by the Deputy Commissioner must be presumed to have been regularly perform- ed i.e .. with due authority from the Court of Wards. [669 G, HJ (iii) Even on the footing that the Court of Wards Act, 1870 was appli- cable to the case, the lease could not be said to be void. A combined reading of ss. 8, 9 and 13 of the said Act showed that the Collector (or Deputy Commissioner, s:nce the terms are synonymous) could grant a lease of land in the management of the Court of Wards in bis district; he could grant a lease in perpetuity with the sanction of the Board of Revenue. In the present case it could be presumed under s. 114 of the Evidence Act that the sanction of the Board of Revenue was duly obtained. [670 DJ 663 664 SUPREME COURT RBPOl.TS [1966] 3 S.C.R Civrr. APPELLATE!JtJRISDICTJO~ : Civil Appeal No. 35 of)963. A Appeal from t.he judgment and decree dated August 9, 1960 of the Patna High Court in Aprea! from Original Decree No. 438 of 1954. Ugra Singh and D. Goh11rdhu11, for the appellant. Sarjoo Prasad and R. C. Prasad for respondent no. I. U. P. Singh. for respondents nos. 2 and 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J. The fac1s that gave rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. In the rlaint there are three schedules, A, B and C. We are concerned in this appeal only with schedules A and C and nothing, therefore. need be said in regard to schedule TI. The lands described in schedules A and C were situate in Rohini Ghatwali Estate. When !hat btatc was in the management of the Court of Wards, on March 25, 1873, the then Deputy Commissioner, Santai Paragana, on behalf of the Court of Wards representing the said Estate executed a lease in perpetuity in respect of the A schedule property in favour of Maharaja Sir Jai Ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.