Salil Kumar Datta, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the State of West Bengal against an appellate judgment of reversal.
(2.) The State of West Bengal granted to the plaintiff a settlement of 1306.71 acres of land designated as "Western Portion of Manasadwip 2nd portion" in the Saugore Island, Pargana Sunclaban, the period of settlement being from 1st April 1921 to 31st March 1947. The terms and conditions of the lease were embodied in a registered document dated September 30, 1921. Clause 3 of the lease provided as follows: "3. That on the conclusion of the term expiring with the 31st March 1947, the lessee will have a right of resettlement of the tenure provided he has behaved satisfactorily and agrees to accept the terms then in force for tenure holders of Saugore Island grant or such terms as Government may then impose and the lessee will have a similar preferential right to future resettlements on the said conditions. Board of Revenue will be the final deciding authority in 1947 and at all future resettlement as to whether his behaviour has been satisfactory." The plaintiff's case is that he faithfully performed the terms and conditions of the lease, reclaimed lands at enormous costs, inducted tenants and did everything required of him by the lease. The plaintiff before the expiry of the lease applied for renewal of the lease. The plaintiff unfortunately had various disputes with the Government and its local officers not connected with the lease, for which he bad to file suits against the Government On account of the said litigations the plaintiff incurred the displeasure of the S.D.O., Diamond Harbour and Collector of 24-Parganas and accordingly the Government wanted to harass the plaintiff by depriving him of his legal right of renewal. The Government started a proceeding for cancellation of the lease on grounds which were found on enquiry to be false. By order in Case No. 140 of 1046-47 communicated to him on May 25, 1048 the plaintiffs prayer for resettlement was rejected even though there was no ground for depriving the plaintiff of hia right of renewal. In the notice dated July 10, 1948, given by the Collector In the said case it was stated that the plaintiff harassed the, tenants, realised abwabs, embanked offset areas without expert opinion or permission and neglected maintenance of sluice boxes in the lot. The said allegations were absolutely false and unfounded and he was not given any opportunity to disprove the allegations. The plaintiff suspected that the refusal was due to the plaintiff's demand for price of paddy referred in plaint. The plaintiff contended that the action of the Board of Revenue was illegal and ultra vires. Tha suit was instituted in the circumstances inter alia for a declaration that the order of Board of Revenue rejecting the prayer for renewal of lease was illegal and ultra vires, that action of the Collector in tak-ing possession was illegal and further, the plaintiff had the right of renewal of the lease. The plaintiff also prayed foi; possession of the suit lands.
(3.) The State of West Bengal contested the suit by filing a written statement and it was contended inter alia that the suit was not maintainable that the plaintiff had no cause of action, that he did not faithfully perform the terms and conditions of the lease, on the contrary they were violated by him in many respects. The allegations that the plaintiff incurred the displeasure of the local officials and that they wanted to harass him by depriving him of the legal rights for renewal were denied. There were systematic breaches of terms of lease, like the harassment of tenants, realisation of abwabs, neglect of banks, embankments and drainage and also failure to provide for drinking water. Further the plaintiff embanked offset areas without any expert opinion or permission and neglected maintenance of sluice boxes. On a due consideration of the behaviour of the plaintiff and hearing the plaintiff the authorities decided to refuse renewal of the lease and directed khas management of the estate and notice was served on the plaintiff accordingly. Possession of the lands was resumed on July 26, 1948. The State contended that renewal was properly refused by the Board and the order was not illegal and ultra vires. It was also denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any declaration and possession as prayed for and the suit in the premises, it was submitted, should be dismissed.;