RANENDRA NARAYAN SINHA & ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 537 · Decided: 12-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RANENDRA NARAYAN SINHA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
October 12, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH AN:D A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 
537 
Ferries, in Zamindari-Revenue payable to 
Governnient s_eparatelr 
assessed-Ferrie.• resumed by 
Guvernrnent-Abatement of revenut--
S11it for recovery of revenue collected-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts-
Limitation. 
The predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, who were zamindars of 
Pargana Goas were in posse~~ion of certain ferries and were reccivins 
income by letting out the right to transport passenger. and goods and 
by levying toll on the ferries. 
The revenue payable to the Government 
in respect of the ferries was separately assessed at Rs. 4800. The rigb't 
to the ferries was recognised as a right to property and, therefore, when 
between the years 1857 and 1860 the ferries were declared public ferries 
by the Government of Bengal, under Regulation VI of 1819, the then 
zamindar was paid Rs. 53,QQO odci as compensation being ten times the 
income received 
from the ferries in the year next after the resumption 
hy the Government. Since on the resumption no abaten1cnt of revenue 
payable in respect of the ferries was granted, the then zamindar claimed 
such abatement. 
The claim was not refused by the Government but they 
collected the revenue under coercive process. 
The appellant's predecessor filed a suit in 1945 claitning the amount 
Of revenue recovered from him in excess of the 
amount lawfully due 
from him, and also for a declaration that the revenues stood abated. The 
rcsponrl.ent contended that the compensation raid was nearly 
hundred 
times the amount of the net annual profits from the ferries 
and that. 
therefore, the amo.unt of compensation must have included the '.:apitalised 
value of the abatement of revenue payable for Jhe ferries. 
The respon-
dent also contended that the suit was barred by limitation and that the 
civil court had no jurisdiction. 
The trial court gave a decree for R'. 14,440/ - being the amount for 
three years immediately preceding the date of suit and also declared that 
there was a complete extinction of the'liability to pay revenue in respect 
of the ferries. 
The High Court, in appeal. reversed the decree. 
In appeal to this Comt. 
HELD : (l) There is nothing in the correspondence relating to the 
resumption of ferries to indicate that the compensation was to include 
the capitalised value for abntement of revenue. 
In the absence of any 
evidence to prove that the GoYernment took into account the value of 
abatement of revenue and that the zamindar received the compensation 
agreeing to pay the revenue in respect of ferries resumed, the· conclusion 
inevitably 
followed that on the resumption or aoquisition of the ferries 
by the Government, the zamindar ceased to be liable to pay .the annual 
revenue assessed upon the 
ferries. 
No 
adverse inference against the 
appellant could be drawn from ~ delay in making the claim for abate-
ment of revenue, [545 D-G] 
538 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971J2 S.C.R. 
(2) A right to collec< revenue which is not due cannot be acquireJ 
hy prescription "nd if the appellant and his predecessors had been com· 
pelled to pay sums of money. which they were not liable to pay the claim 
for refund could properly be made within three years from the date on 
\\.'hich the payment was made, and to the claim for a declaration of a 
right to abatement, there is no bar of limitation. 
Each .demand for re
4 
covery by the Government confers 
a fresh cause of action. [546A-C] 
(3) Regulation 19 of 18/6, Regulation 6_of 1819, Act 1 of 1886 am! 
the rules i.n the Bengal Tauzi Mamml, 1940, do not indicate that the 
jurisdiction of the civil court was cxch1dcd in respect of matters Felatin¥ 
to abatement of revenue. The decision in Secretary of State for India 
in Council v. Maharajaclhiraja Kamesl11w1r Singh Bal111dur 1.L.R. 15 Pat. 
146 has no hearing on the present case. 
1547 E; ~48 D·F; 549 A-Fl 
CIVIL A PP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1649 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the .iudgment and Decree dated the January 24. 
1962 of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeal No. 24 of 195 l. 
A 
II 
c 
P. Chattetjee, S. C. Majumdar, Padam Blndu Chatter1ee and 
D ' 
R. K. Jain, for the appella,nts. 
A. N. Sinha and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
On December 17, 1945 Raja Bhupendra 1\YJrayan 
Sinha commenced. an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.