STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus KUNWAR SRI TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH

SHAH, J.-Under a treaty between the East India Company and Nawab Asafuddaula, the Province of Banaras was ceded about the year 1775 to the East India Company. Tht> Company then granted a sanad to Raja Chet Singh, the former ruler of Banaras, and under that sanad, the rights and powers previously held by Raja Chet Singh were conferred afresh. Raja Chet Singh granted in jagir, pargana "Syudpore Bhettree" in perpetuity to bis Diwan Ousan Singh as remuneration for services rendered to his family. Raja Chet Singh having renounced his gadi, the East India Company confirmed the grant made by the Raja in favour of Ousan Singh. Raja Chet Singh was succeeded by Raja Mahip Narain Singh who executed a sanad in favour of Ousan Singh affirming the grant.

p. 215

Land revenue settlements were made in the Province of Banaras about the year 1789-90, but the jagirs including "Syudpore Bhettree" were excluded from that settlement. Ousan Singh died in or about th" year 1800, and his son Shco Xarain Singh succeec!ed to the jagir. In the enquiry held by the Collector of Ghazi pore into the proprietary right claimed by the jagirdar under Regulation II of 181!), it was declared that the grant to Ousan Singh 1rns for Jifo only and die! not confer a heritabk or transfora.blc tnnuro in the parga.nas. Tho decision of the Collector was confirmed hv the Commissioner of Bihar and Banaras, subject "to the recommendation that Shco Xarain Singh should be maintained in possession r;f the p:i.rganas for lifo. The Governmc·nt then directed in 1828 that a detailed settlement he made with the village za.miudars, and offered Sheo Narain Singh allowance for !ifo of one-ha.If of the revenue to be asseBsed on tho pargana. Sheo Kara.in Singh declined to accept the offer and commenced an action in the civil court contosting the validity of the order resuming the jagir. Tho Government considerrd the question afresh, and resolved to reviso the or~er of resumption and in July 1830, ordered that Shco Narain Singh be considered Tahsilrlar of parganas "Syudpore Bhettrec," and tha~ the office be treated as hereditary devolving upon the d,,sccndants of the jagirrlar a.nd held so long a8 the incumbent clid not infringe the privileges found to belong to other olu.sscs at tho time of formation of tho settlement. Sheo :Narain Singh died before the re- Rolution of the Government was communicated to him and he was succeeded by his son Harnarain Singh who withdrew tho suit and signed a compromise incorporating tho terms of the resolution.

pp. 215–216

On August 19, 1831, the Secretary to the Government addressed to the Agent of tho Governor- Gencral at Banaras a letter requesting the Socrctary to tho Govornor-Genoral in the Pension department to prepare tho necessary documents relating to the grant of a sanad specifying that parganas "Syudporo Bhettroe" wore granted on an "istmrar" tenure to Harnarain Singh for his own benefit and of his heirs and succeesors in perpetuity on condition of their paying to Government 3/4ths of the Jamma which the revenue officers may in a resettlement of the parganas assess thereon, and that all claims to proprietary right to any village or villages situate in the said parganas shall he fully enquired into and in the event of auy such claims being established to the satisfaction of the Government, the village or vii· !ages forming the subject of the claim shall be con· sidered distinct from and independent of t.he grant and that a settlement Hhall be made wit.h the nroprietors as in other cases, that the office of Tahsi]. dar shall belong to Harnarain Singh and be h3re· ditary in his family so long as the conditions prescribed for the duties of that office be not infringed, and that in virtue of such office, the separate pro· prietors shall continue to pay the Jamma "'hich may be assessed on their villages through Harnarain Singh or such other member of the family as the Government may appoint, provided that l/4th of the Jamma of such separated villages shall be deducted from the payment to be made to the Government in lieu of all remuneration for discharging the duties of Tahsildar, and provided further that until the settlement shall be completed, Harnarain Singh shall continue to pay Jamma to Government. This propo· sal calling upon Hamara.in Singh to bear all the expenses of the administration and any loss in collection which may occur, departed from the terms of the compromise. Harnarain Singh refused to accept the offer of a sanad on the terms set out in that letter and also the office of Tahsildar. In the meanwhile, proceedings for settlement were commenced and on November 16, 1832, the Settlement Officer reported on the conclusion of a summary settlement of the parganas that in 166 mahals, the village zamindars established proprietary rights and the revenue assessed upon them was Rs. 1,28,960. He further reported that 12 mahals of which the gross revenue was Rs. 22,840 were settled with the jagirdar at a reduced revenue of Rs. 17,130.

pp. 216–217

Harnarain Singh having refused to undertake tho oflicc of Tahsildar on the term, offered by tho Government, the Board of Revenue suggested that Harnarain Singh should receive I/4th of the net collections after deducting from the gros~ collection the '"'st. of Tahsil cstabli~lnnent thcrcb\' gi\,in" him

pp. 217–218

. " an income of R•. 3G,:\:?.2-8-0. The Board of Revenue r"commcndcd that a sanad be issued under the authority of the Lt. Governor conferring "tho pension of gs, 3G,3:!::!-8-0 Ba!Jll Hamara in Singh and his hdrn in perpetuity".

p. 218

In a letter dated September I:J, 1837, it was recorded that the Lt. Governor of X.W.F. Province was of the view that it would be more eonformblc with the terms of tho agreement if the all<iwanco on Harm.rain Singh's villages (I:! 111ahal8) wern given in the form of a remission of revenue to the amount of one-fourth; the Jamma being fixed at Rs. li,130 instead of Rs. ::!2,940 and in the villages settled with zamindars ( mahals) Harnarain Singh bo paid annually a pension of J /-!th of the collections after deducting tho 'L'ahsildari charge, and that footing Rs. 30,612-8-0 bo granted to Harnarain Singh. By letter dated October 19, 18:17, from the Secretary to the Lt. Governor, N.\V.F. Province, the Secretary to the Board of Rcyenue was informed that tho Lt. Governor had resolved to adopt the Board's recommendation made in their letter dated September 26, 183i, and to allow li'lrnarain Singh I/4th of the not collection'! after duducting the expenses of the Tahaildari establishment i. e., Hs. 30, 61::!-8-0 out of a net Jamma of thll villages amounting to Hs. 1,28,960. About the 12 mahals settled with Harnarain Singh, the allowance wa.s directed to be made in the form of a remission of I /4th of rovonuo assessed. .Finally, by letter dated September 14, 1838, from the Secretary to the Sadar Board of Revenue to the Officiati.nµ: Commissioner 5th Division, Banaras, it statod that "what the Government intended to givo is a clear fourth of the net revonue of the Pargana to the Muqurrureedar as pension". The Jetter further stated.

p. 218

"2. The arrangement of paying a portion of that pension by a remission of revenue on certain mauzas settled, as was supposed, directly with the muqurrureedar was propoaod by the Board and allowed by Government as a more matter of convenience to the parties. Neither Government nor Board intended to alienate any part of the muqurrureedar's pension to his son or to any other person.

p. 219

3. If the mauzas supposed to have been settled with the muqurrureedar for his own use and behalf, turn out to be held by another person on a distinct interest, it will be necessary, the Board observe to modifythe arrangement previously allowed and to collect the whole assessed revenue of those mauzas as of all others; and when the same shall have been collected to pay the Muqurrureedar his clear fourth of the net collections.

p. 219

4. As however, these mauzas were sattled by the Government with the i\Iuqurrureedar his responsibility for the J umma any portion of revenue which may fall in arrear by person or the arrangement made by him, or of the domestic differences of his family, must be made good from his pension, before the assignment of the fourth share of the net collections can have effect.

p. 219

5. The Board must con8ider the Muqurrureedar as the owner of these villages during his life. With his family arrangements they have no concern. But if it will be his wish that the whole revenue be collected from these villages, and one-fourth be returned to him from the treasury instead of receiving that fourth in the shape of a remission, he is at liberty to make the election.

p. 219

6. He is also the Board remark of course at liberty to cause those mauza2 to be t ranl!fcrred or sold in tlic case of arrear; but his responsibility for the a•sesscd Jununa as J!xed

pp. 219–220

by tho act of settlement will remain the tiamo. It is manifest that the recommendatium• made bv the Board of Revenue and tho Secretary t.o tfie Go\·ernmcnt. in the lengthy correspondence Y:1ricd from time to time, but in the final lcttRr it appears to have Leen made clear that an amount equivalent to I /4th of the net revenue of the IGG mahals Lo given as pemion annually to the jagirdar.

p. 220

A formal sanad, though contemplated, was, it appears, never issued, but it is common ground that the allowance was paid through the Treasury Office of the Collector of Ghaziporo year aftn year since the year J 838 to Harnarain Singh am! his descendants. This allowance to tho jagirdar of "Syudpore Bhottrec" was called sometimes in tho revenue papers "malikana" sometimes "pension" and sometimes a "share in the revenue of tho entire pargana . "

p. 220

In l!l51, tho U. P. Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of HJiJl, and relying upon s. 6(b) of tho Act, tho revenue authorities stopped payment of tho allowance to the descendants of Harnarain Singh. The respondent who is a descendant of Harnarai.n Singh then presented Writ Petition No. 464 of 1954 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a writ in the nature of mandamns calling upon tho State of Uttar Pradoah to forbear from interfering with his right to regular payment of the "pension, allowance or malikana" payable in lieu of the hereditary estate of Harnarain Singh in respect of parganas ''Syudpore Bhottree" and for an order for pay· ment of tho "pension, allowance or malikana" as it fo II due. Tho respondent claimed inter alia that by virtue of the notification issued under s. 4 of the Aot, his right to receive tho pension did not cease, especially when the scheme of tho Act and tho principles of assessment did not contemplate payment of compensation in respect of extinction of his right to the allowance, and that in any event, there was no nexus between the pension and the estates sought to be acquired under Act 1 of 1951 or the zamindari system songht to be abolished, because the pension was neither land nor immovable property nor an estate within the meaning of the Act and being merely compensation payable to him in lieu of the rights of his ancestors over the estates comprised within the pargana "Syudpore Bhettree", it was not liable to vest in the State. The High Court rejected certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the petition (which objections are not canvassed in this appeal) and held that the right of the respondent to receive Rs. 36,330 per annum was not an "estate" within the meaning of the Act and that the right was not acquired under the Act nor did compensation fall to be paid for the same. In the view of the High Court, under s. 6 of the Act, only the rights of the intermediaries in respect of land revenue of the lands comprised in the estate were extinguished and that the rights of third parties under a contract 'with the State not relating to the rights and privileges of intermediaries, tenants or other persons having interest in land were not effected, and the predecessors in interest of the respondent having been granted an allowance annually in lieu of abandonment of the right to realise land revenue, the arrangement did not come to an ·end because of the "abolition of the zamindari" under the Act.

pp. 220–221

The question which falls to be determined in this appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, is whether the right of the respondent to receive the allowance under the arrangement of the year l 838 was extinguished as a consequence ensuing from , the vesting of the "Syudpore Bhettree" parganas in the State of Uttar Pra.desh under s. 4 of the Act.

p. 221

By the preamble, it was recited that the Act was enacted to provide for· the abolition of the Zaminrlari system which involved intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the State and for the acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to form the Law rclati1ig to land tenure consequent upon Rnch abolition and acquisition and to make provision for other matters connected therewith. Bv s.3 (8} which was retrospectively amended by Act 14 of l !l;i8, "estate" was defined as meaning the area. inclurl<·cl under onP <'nt.ry in any of tho regist€rs <lPscribccl in els. (a) to (d) and in far as it relates to a pPrmanent tenure-holder in any register described in cl. (c) ofR. 32 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act l!lOl as it Rtood immr<liately prior to the coming into force of tho A<'t or subject to the restrictions mentioner] with n·spcct to tho register described in

pp. 221–222

( c) in any of the registers maintained under any cth~r Act, Rule, Regulation or Order relating to tho prcpa ration or maintenance of record of rights in force at any time and included share in or of an estate. "Intermediary" was defined as meaning with r<'fcrpnco to any est.ate, a proprietor, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, thckadar, permanent lesaoos in A vadh and pcrm1i11ent tcnurfl hol<ler of such est.a to or part thereof. "Land.. defined as meaning, Pxcept in 143 and 144, as land hold or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandr~· which inrluded pisciculturo and poultry farming. By s.4, provision was made for vesting of estat<'s in the State of l:ttar Pradesh. By sub·s.( l ), it was cnnctcd, insofar as it is material, that the State Go1·ermnent may by notification declare that as from n date to be specified, all estates ~ituato in Uttar PradPsh shall va~t in tho State and from the <late so specified, all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except as provided in the Act, in the State free from all encumbrances. Sect.ion G prod<lecl for the consequences of an estate in the State. On the publication of a notification undnr s. 4 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in anv contract or dC>cumont or in any other law for tho time being in forco and save as otherwise provided in the Act, the consequences set forth in els.( a) to (j) of s. 6 were to ensue in the area to which the notification related. By ol.(a), all rights, title and interest of intermediaries in every estate in such area and in the sub-soil in such estate including rights, if any, in mines and minerals ceased and vested in the State. Clause (b) on which the dispute primarily turns, provided :

pp. 222–223

"All grants and confirmations of title of or to land in any estate so acquired, or of or to any right or privilege in respect of such land or its land revenue shall, whether

p. 223

liable to resumption or not determine."

p. 223

By cl. ( o), all rents, local rates and sayar in respect of any estate or holding therein for any period after the date of vesting and which, but for tho acquisition, would be payable to an intermediary, vested in and became payable to the State Government and not to the intermediary; and where under an agreement or oontract made before · the date of vesting any rent, oess, local rate or sayar for any period after that date ha:l been paid to or compounded or released by an intermediary, the same. notwithstanding the agreement or the contract, became recoverable by the State Government from the intermediary. By els. ( d) and\ o), liability of intermediaries in respect of any estate incurred for a.ny period prior to the date of vesting remained enforceable. By cl. (f), the interest of intermediaries in any estate was exempt from attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any court and any attachment existing at the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date, subject to the provisions of s. 73 of the Transfer of Property Act,

p. 223

1882, ceased to be in force. By cl. (g), mortgages ..._with possession on any estat" or part of an estate on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting were to be deemed to have been substituted by simple mortgages without prejudice to the rights of tho State Government. By cl. (h), no claim or liability enforceable or incurred before the date of v sting by or against an intermediary for any mon<'y charged on or secured by a mortgage of an estate or part thereof was, except as provided in 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, to be enforceable ag11inst his interest in the estate. By cl. ( i), all snits and proceedings of tho nature to bo rrescribcd pending in any court at tho date o vesting and all proceedings upto any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceeding previous to the date of vesting wNe stayed. By cl. (j), all mahals and their subdi\·i~ions <;xisting on tho dare immediately preceding; tho date of V<'sting and all engagements for tho payment of land revenue or rent by a proprietor, under-proprietor, S\lb-proprictor, co-sharer, or lambardar as such determined and ceased to be in force.

pp. 223–224

Section 37 t-0 40 of the Act provided for the preparation of tho Compensation Assessment Roll of intermediaries as r<'gpects mahals and for prepa.ration of gross n.sscts of mahals. It was on tbi.s Compensation Assessment Roll that the <YJmpensation pay:Lble for Joss of interest of tho intermediaries was to be computed and paid. Section 42 provided for computation of gross assets of an intermediary and s. 44 for computation of the net assets of an intermediary. Section 45 proytdcd that in the case of proprietors to w horn s. 78 of the U.P. !,and Hevenue Act, 1901 applied or who were assignees of land revenue whose names wcrf' recorded in the record of rights maintained under els. (a) to (d) of s. 32 of the said Act, under-proprietors, subproprietors, permanent tenure-holders· and permanent lessees in A"adh, tho provisions of 39 to 44 were to apply subject to such incidental changes~· and modifications as may be prescribod and the"<::::::. groas assets and not assets of such intermediaries were to be computed accordingly.

p. 224

By the definition, in s. 3 ( 8) of the Act an "estate" is an area included under one entry in the registers described in els. (a) to ( d) of the Land Revenue Act. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondent that allowance paid to him could not be regarded as an "estate". That view is not challenged before this Court by counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The right to receive the allowance of Rs. 30,612-8-0 from the Government under the arrangement cannot, in the absence of an express provision to that effect, be called "an area included under one entry in any of the registers" described in the various clauses. The first part of s. tl(b) does not therefore assist the claim made by the State .

p. 225

But of the 12 mahals the respondent was proprietor : the land of the mabals was "estate" within the meaning of s. 3(8) of the Act and by s. 4, the right of the respondent in that estate stood vested in and transferred to the State. It is true that by the arrangement of the ye11.r 1838, confirming the earlier compromise, remission of %% was granted to the respondent's predecessors in respect of payment of land revenue. If the right of the respondent in the 12 mahals ceased, the right to remission could not be converted into a positive right to receive the amount thereef, notwithstanding the extinction of his right in those 12 mahals. The right to remission of land revenue was a right in respect of land revenue in the estate which stood vested in the State. The letters dated Septembf'r 13, 1837, October 19, 1837 and June 15, 1838 make it abundantly clear that the difference of Rs. 5710 between the amount. originally assessed and the .Jarnma recoverable was to be remission of revenue. The right of the respondent to the 12 mahals was transferred to the State by virtue of the notification under s. 4, and the consequences set out in s11b-s. (b) of s. 6 relating to those 12 mahals ensued.

p. 225

We are therefore unable to agree with the High Court that fur the amount cf Rs. 6710 which was treated as remission, the respondent was entitied to obtain relief on the footing that that right was not affected by the issue ·of the' notification ·under s. 4 of the Act.

pp. 225–226

· ·The claim of the respondent in respect of the allowanc'e granted as consideration for abandonment 'of the right to 166 mahals rests on a finner ground. It is true that this allowance was computed as I/4th share of the revenue assessed · on the 166 -mahals. B_ut the respondent under the arrang{ment. has no interest in the land of the 166 mahals or in the land revenue payable in respect- thereof. - By the order of the Government, the Tight of Sheo Narain Singh to - the entire pargana "Syudpore ~- Bhettiee" was resumed. • Sheo Narain Singh challengeil the authoritv of the Government to resunie his ·interest in the Jagir - and dispute pending in the civil' court was compromised on the terms which were finalised in the year 1838 whereby 'Harnarain Singh arid his decendants - were-given an allowance in amount cqu1i.l to_ I/4th of tho net revenue of the 166 mahals. Because the annual allowance is equal to a fourth share of the net revenue of the maha!S, the right of the respondent does not acquire the character 'of an interest in land or in land revenue .. Under the arrangement, the e'ntiro land reven!le was to be . collected by the Government - and in the collection . Harnarain Singh and his' descendants had· no illterest or- obligation. :As- a consideration for relin~ quishing the right to the land and the rcvemie thereof, the respondent and his ancestors were_, given an allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0, -Tho. ·.11lowanco was

p. 226

iu' a serne related to the· land revenue assessed on , , the land,' i.e., it was fued as a 'percentage of- the lal)-d revenue : but the pe-rccntage was nierely a measure, and indicated the source' of the right in lieu of which the allowance was given. The amount is ·described as "pension" in the letters dated September 14, 1838, July 7, 1837 and June 15, 1838. The words used in cl. (b) are undoubtedly wide; 1.ny right to a grant which has. relation to land or land revenue would be determined by the rmeration of that clause. But the allowance to Harnarain Singh was not in respect ofland or its revenue: it was granted as consideration for settlement of a claim litigated in a civil court relating to that land.

pp. 226–227

The primary object of the legislature, as set {out in the preamble of the Act, was to abolish the zarnindari system and to acquire the rights of the interwediaries and to pay compensation for acquisition of those rights. By s. 4, estates in the area for which a notification was issued, vest in the Stato free from all encumbrances and as a consequence

p. 227

of vesting, the rights of intermediaries, but not their /pre-existing liabilities are extinguished as from the date of vesting. Clauses (a),(c) to (f) and (h) expressly deal with the rights and obligations of intermediaries, and the interaction thereon of the notification of vesting. Clause (g) deals with the derivative rights of mort.gagees of estates. By cl. (i}, the mahals 1md sub-divisions are obliterated, and the engage-

p. 227

ments for payment of land revenue or rent by ~proprietors, under-proprietors, sub-proprietors, co-sharers and sub-sharns cense. There is no express reference in s. 6 (b). to the right of intermediaries ; by the first part of that clause, the grant and confirmation of title to land in an

p. 227

estate are determilled and by the second part, the ., rights and privileges in land or in the land revenue in ,.the estates are determined. The key words of the second part of the clause are "in respect of" indicating a direct connection between a right or privilege and land in an estate or its revenue. The intention of the legislature is manifestly to extinguish estates and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish the interest of intermediaries between the State and

p. 227

the tiller of the soil. • If the grant or confirmation ·"- ?f title is in respect of a right or privilege to land ifr an estate or its revenue, it must determine under cl. (b) ; but a right to receive an allowance which is granted in considc~ation of extinction of a right t<JI hnrl or land revonuo does not., hv tho force of cl. (h) determine. Tho allowance has i10t the quality of land or land re\·cnue: its qwrntum only ~as measured by c<Jnating it with a fourth share in the net rev(•nue of a part of land which \\·as the subject mattBr of the suit in which th<' arrnn!!<'ID<·nt for paymf-nt of the allowance was mack. ·

pp. 227–228

A bsrnce of a proYision in the Art for pa~ 1mnt of compensation for a right such as th<' one rlaimed by the rPspondent strongly supports tlH• pica that tho right is not intended to he acquirr<l or extinguish!'d. Section 3i to 44 deal with the as;;nssment of compe1rnation to be paid to internwdiarics. Compensation Assessment Roll of intcrmediaril's in•, respect of the mahals has to he prcparccl and detailed inHtructions in that bchal fa re contnine<! in ss. 3!l to 44. Bys. 45, in computing the gross m1scts and net assets of proprietors who arc assignees of Janel revenue and of under-proprietors, Hub-proprietors, permanent t-Onure-holdcrn and permanent lessees in Avaclh ss. 39 to 44 of the Act arc applicahh subject to such modifieations and inciclcntal changes as may.,,.he prc1\arihecl. It is common ground that s.78 of the U. P. Lam] Ro\·enue Act has no application to "Syudpore Rhettrcc" pargana. To proprietors who :ire assignees of land re\·enuc and whose names arc rccord<>d in the record of rights maintained under s.3::? els. (a) to (d), the provisions of >S.39 to 44 may undoubtedly apply subject to modifications a.s may he prescribed, ancl computation of their gro~/ and assets may be made according!.\'. But. the respondent is not an assignee of land rnn•nne whose name i~ so recorded in the re<'ord of rights nor is he qua tho allowance an under-proprietor, sub-prnprietor, permanent tenure.holder or permanent lessee. Section 45 is a machinery pro\·ision : it clocs not purport to extend the field of s.6 hy prescribing,, coHsequences which are not. incorporated in tl!Al s ction. There is in s.45 nothing to warrnnt the -i11hmission of counsel for tho State that rightJi of a ~and-holder to receive allowances from the Government are extinguished even without compensation, merely because he was an assignee of land revenue of some land or was a proprietor, sub-proprietor, permanent tenure-holder or permanent lessee in respect of other land in A vadh. The scheme for payment of compens'ltion prescribed by ss. 39 to 44 is extended to amongst others, proprietors of land who are assignees of land revenue whose names are recorcfod in tho record of rights maintained under els. (a) to (d) of s.32: but, a person receiving an allowance from the State of the character received by the respondent is not a proprietor who is an assignee of land revenue, and in any event, if his !name is not entered in the revenue record under " els. (a) to (d) of s.32, the provisions relating to computation of gross and net assets will not apply to him. Absence of a provision in the Act for awarding compensation to persons holding interest such as the respondent has, strongly supports the view that such interest was not to be extinguished by the operation of s.6(b) of Act 1 of 1951.

pp. 228–229

We accordingly hold that the High Court was right in granting the application preferred by the respondent insofar as it related to the allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0 granted as a consideration for extinction of the right of Harnarain Singh to 166 mahals : but for reasons already stated, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the ) respondent was entitled to receive in respect of the 12 mahals the land revenue which was remitted. The order passed by the High Court will therefore be modified and the petition of the respondent in so far as it deals with remission of land revenue in respect of the 12 mahals of "Syudpore Bhettree" will stand dismissed. The order of the High Court

p. 229

in respect of the allowance of Rs. 30,612-13-0 will WJltand confirmed. Subject to the above modifications, the appeal will stand dismissed with costs.

p. 229

Appeal d~Bmi&Bed.

p. 229