9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (2) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered by the said lease, but it is alleged that the 2nd defendant and his ancestors had been in possession of the same. The plaintiff, who is the present Ghatwal of the Rohini Ghatwali Estate, after attaining majority on October 17, 1949, filed Title Suit No. 37 of 1952 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deoghar, for recovery of possession of the said lands on the ground, inter alia, that they formed part of his Estate and that the lease executed by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the A Schedule lands was void, as it was not countersigned by the Commissioner, Bhagalpore, and that the 2nd defendant had no title to the C Schedule lands. To that suit the member, Board of revenue, Bihar, was made the 1st defendant and Maharaja Pratap Singh, the successor-in-interest of the lessee, being a minor represented by the Collector of Monghyr, as representing the Court of Wards, as the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the lease executed on behalf of the Court of Wards, not having been sanctioned by the Board of Revenue, became void as soon as the superintendence of the Court of Wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit vested in the State Government. The suit was filed on October 21, 1952, i.e., after the Estate had vested in the Government. But the defendants did not contest the suit on the ground that after such vesting the plaintiff had no locus standi to maintain the suit. Pending the appeal in the Patna High Court, the State of Bihar was made a party to it on February 19, 1957; but the said State did not put forward its claim to the suit property. That apart, the question whether Basauri Ghatwali Tenure vested in the State was the subject-matter of T.S. No. 115 of 1950 between the parties. It is represented to us that the learned Subordinate Judge held in that suit that the said tenure also vested in the State, that an appeal filed in the High Court also went against the respondents and that the respondents would file an appeal to this Court. In the circumstances we do not think we are justified in permitting the appellant to raise for the first time before us the contention based upon the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. But we must make it clear that we leave open the said question in view of the fact that proceedings are pending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y law to the proprietors of other lands. Provided that no lease of ghatwali lands for any period extending beyond the lifetime or incumbency of the grantor of the lease shall be valid and binding on the successors of the grantor, unless the same shall be granted for the working of mines or for the clearing of gunle, or for the erection of dwelling-houses or manufactories, or for tanks, canals and similar works, and shall be approved by the Commissioner of the Division, such approval being certified by an endorsement on the lease under the signature of the Commissioner. 10. Section 2. If any of the said ghatwali lands be at any time under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, or otherwise subject to the direct control of the officers of the Government, it shall be lawful for the Court of Wards or the Commissioner to grant lease for any such purpose as aforesaid; and every lease so granted shall be valid and binding on all future possessors of the said lands, anything in the existing law to the contrary notwithstanding. 11. The Court of wards Act, 1870 (Act of 1870) Section 8. In every division of the provinces subject to the control of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states that come under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and in respect of lands in such estates, the Court of Wards can grant a lease of the same for a term exceeding 10 years or beyond the period of expiration of the ward's minority only with the sanction of the Board of Revenue. 14. It is, therefore, clear that Act V of 1859 is a special statute and Act IV of 1870 is a general statute. The special statute does not make the sanction of the Board of Revenue a pre-condition for the validity of the lease executed by a Court of Wards so as to bind all future possessors of the said land, whereas s. 9 of Act V of 1859 imposes such a condition. The argument is that both the Acts should be read together and, if so read, the sanction of the Board of Revenue would also be a pre-condition in addition to the conditions imposed under the proviso to s. 1 of Act V of 1859. In our view, such a contention is untenable. The principle of law in this regard is well settled. In Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statues, the relevant principle is stated, at p. 168, thus : "A general later law does not abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication. Generalia specialibus non d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case." Under illustration (e) the court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If an official act is proved to have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly done. In this case it has been proved that the lease was executed on behalf of the Court of Wards and that the lessee and his successors have been in unquestioned enjoyment of the said lands for many years. Indeed, the plaintiff in the plaint does not allege that the Deputy Commissioner was not legally authorized to Act on behalf of the Court of Wards; his only objection is that the document was not countersigned by the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division. But that condition was only applicable to a lease executed by a Ghatwal and not by the Court of Wards. In the circumstances, we think it is a fit case where the court can reasonably presume that the Deputy Commissioner, under appropriate rules, was duly authorised to act on behalf of the Court of Wards. 19. Assuming that the conditions laid down in Act IV of 1870 should also be complied with, we think the respondents are not in a better position. Unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
