HARENDRA KRISHNA GHOSH Vs. PROVINCE OF BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is whether the Revenue Officer acted with or without jurisdiction in estimating fair rent at Rs. 410/15.00 on a plot of homestead land. In making this estimate, he was purporting to exercise power under section 3 of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act, 1936, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The plaintiff's case is that the land on which rent has been assessed is not non-agricultural land at all within the meaning of the Act, and that consequently the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to assess rent at all. The defendant's contention was that the land was non-agricultural land within the meaning of the Act, that the suit was not maintainable and that it was barred under the provisions of the Bengal Non-Agricultural Lands Assessment Act.

(2.) Both the courts below rejected the defence contention that the land was non-agricultural land within the meaning of the Act. They held however that the Revenue Officer cannot be held to have acted without jurisdiction and that the position in law was that he acted with jurisdiction though in exercise of that jurisdiction he made an error. It was held further in, view of this that the suit was barred under section 17 of the Act.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the appellants before us is that the courts below erred in thinking that the Revenue Officer acted with jurisdiction It may be mentioned at the outset that it is not disputed that if it be found that the civil court did act without, jurisdiction, the present suit would be maintainable. This is not one of the cases which fall within the class of cases mentioned in Lord Esher's famous judgment in Reg. Vs. Commissioners of Taxes, [(L. R. 21, Q. B. D 313, 319 (1888)], where a court which is given jurisdiction on the happening of certain facts is also given jurisdiction to decide finally whether those facts exist. In the present case, if the facts which would give jurisdiction are proved not to have existed, a suit will be maintainable in the civil court that the Revenue Officer acted without jurisdiction and for consequential relief.