{"id":48070,"date":"1970-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970"},"modified":"2018-08-21T10:10:01","modified_gmt":"2018-08-21T04:40:01","slug":"ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970","title":{"rendered":"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1245, \t\t 1971 SCR (2) 537<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRANENDRA NARAYAN SINHA & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/10\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1245\t\t  1971 SCR  (2) 537\n\n\nACT:\nFerries\t  in   Zamindari-Revenue   payable   to\t  Government\nseparately assessed-Ferries resumed by\tGovernment-Abatement\nof   revenue-Suit   for\t recovery  of\trevenue\t  collected-\nJurisdiction of Civil Courts Limitation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  predecessors-in-interest  of the  appellant,  who\twere\nzamindars  of  Pargana Goas were in  possession\t of  certain\nferries\t and were receiving income by letting out the  right\nto transport passengers and goods and by levying toll on the\nferries.   The revenue payable to the Government in  respect\nof  the\t ferries was separately assessed at  Rs.  4800,\t The\nright  to the ferries was recognised as a right to  property\nand,  therefore, when, between the years 1857 and  1860\t the\nferries\t were declared public ferries by the  Government  of\nBengal,\t under Regulation VI of 1819, the then zamindar\t was\npaid  Rs.  53,000 odd as compensation being  ten  times\t the\nincome received from the ferries in the year next after\t the\nresumption  by the Government.\tSince on the  resumption  no\nabatement  of revenue payable in respect of the ferries\t was\ngranted,  the  then zamindar claimed  such  abatement.\t The\nclaim  was not refused by the Government but they  collected\nthe revenue under coercive process.\nThe  appellant's predecessor filed a suit in  1945  claiming\nthe  amount of revenue recovered from him in excess  of\t the\namount\tlawfully  due from him, and also for  a\t declaration\nthat  the revenues stood abated.  The  respondent  contended\nthat  the  compensation paid was nearly\t hundred  times\t the\namount of the net annual profits from the ferries and  that.\ntherefore, the amount of compensation must have included the\ncapitalised  value of the abatement of revenue\tpayable\t for\nthe  ferries.  The respondent also contended that  the\tsuit\nwas  barred  by limitation and that the civil court  had  no\njurisdiction.\nThe  trial  court gave a decree for Rs. 14,440\/-  being\t the\namount\tfor  three years immediately preceding the  date  of\nsuit and also declared that there was a complete  extinction\nof  the liability to pay revenue in respect of the  ferries.\nThe High Court, in appeal, reversed the decree.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : (1) There is nothing in the correspondence  relating\nto   the  resumption  of  ferries  to  indicate\t  that\t the\ncompensation  was  to  include\tthe  capitalised  value\t for\nabatement  of  revenue.\t In the absence of any\tevidence  to\nprove  that  the Government took into account the  value  of\nabatement  of  revenue and that the  zamindar  received\t the\ncompensation  agreeing\tto  pay the revenue  in\t respect  of\nferries resumed, the conclusion inevitably followed that  on\nthe  resumption\t or  acquisition  of  the  ferries  by\t the\nGovernment,  the  zamindar ceased to be liable\tto  pay\t the\nannual\trevenue\t assessed  upon\t the  ferries.\t No  adverse\ninference  against  the appellant could be  drawn  from\t the\ndelay in making, the claim for abatement of revenue. [545 D-\nG]\n538\n(2)  A right to collect revenue which is not due  cannot  he\nacquired  by  prescription  and if  the\t appellant  and\t his\npredecessors had been compelled to pay SLIMS of money  which\nthey  were  not\t liable to pay the claim  for  refund  Could\nproperly  be made within three years from the date on  which\nthe payment was made, and to the claim for a declaration  of\nit right to abatement, there is no bar of limitation.\tEach\ndemand for recovery by the Government confers a fresh  cause\nof action,[1546A-C]\n(3)  Regulation\t 19 of 1816, Regulation 6 of 1819, Act 1  of\n1886 and the rules in the Bengal Tauzi Manual, 1940. do\t not\nindicate  that\tthe  jurisdiction of  the  civil  court\t was\nexcluded  in  respect of matters relating  to  abatement  of\nrevenue.   The decision in Secretary of State for  India  in\nCouncil v. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh Bahadur I.L.R. 15\nPat. 246 has no hearing on the present case. [1547 F; 548 D-\nF; 549 A-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION\t Civil Appeal  No.  1649  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tfrom the judgment and Decree dated the\tJanuary\t 24,
\n1962  of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeal No.  24  of
\n1951.\n<\/p>\n
P.   Chatterjee, S. C. Majumdar, Padam Bindu Chatterjee and
\nR.   K. Jain, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
A. N. Sinha and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J. On December 17, 1945 Raja Bhupendra Narayan  Sinha
\ncommenced  an action in the Court of the Subordinate  Judge,
\nMurshidabad against the Province of Bengal, for an order de-
\nclaring\t that  he  “is\tentitled to  abatement\tout  of\t the
\nrevenue-  payable by him for Pargana Goas Tauzi No.  523  of
\nthe Murshidabad Collectorate on account of resumption of  11
\nFerries\t lying\twithin\tHuda Alaipur to the  extent  of\t Rs.
\n4,800\/,-  per  annum”, and for a  decree  “refunding  excess
\nrevenue realized by the Province of Bengal”.  Raja Bhupendra
\nNarayan\t Sinha died during the pendency of the suit and\t his
\nlegal  representative Rajendra Narayan Sinha prosecuted\t the
\nsuit.  The suit was resisted, after the Indian\tIndependence
\nAct,  by  the State of West Bengal.  The  Subordinate  Judge
\ndecreed the suit.  He awarded to the plaintiff a decree\t for
\n”  abatement of revenue payable by the plaintiff in  respect
\nof  the\t estate\t “bearing  separate  account  No.  523-3  in
\nconsequence  of resumption by the Government of\t 11  ferries
\nreferred  to in the plaint to the extent of Rs. 4800\/’-\t per
\nannum”,\t and a decree for Rs. 14,440\/- being the  amount  of
\nrevenue\t recovered during three years immediately  preceding
\nthe  institution of the suit.  In appeal the High  Court  of
\nCalcutta  reversed the decree and dismissed the\t plaintiff’s
\nsuit.  The plaintiff has appealed to this Court with  certi-
\nficate granted by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
There is not much dispute about the facts which gave rise to
\nthe  claim.   By  Regulation 1 of 1793\tcalled\t“The  Bengal
\nPermanent Settlement Regulation 1793”, the  Governor-General
\nin   Council   (,gave\tlegislative   recognition   to\t the
\nProclamation   previously   addressed  to   the\t  zamindars,
\nindependent  Talukdars and other actual proprietors of\tland
\npaying\trevenue\t to Government in the  Province\t of  Bengal.
\nThereby, inter alia the Jamma assessed upon the lands  under
\nthe  permanent\tsettlement  was to be  continued  after\t the
\nexpiry\tof the period of the current  decennial\t settlement,
\nand  to\t remain\t unalterable.  The  amount  payable  to\t the
\nGovernment  for the Pargana Goas was determined at the\ttime
\nof permanent settlement at (Sicca) Rs. 99,160\/1 1 \/ 1 1\t 3\/4
\nGondas.\t  The  Pergana consisted of 12 Hudas  or  groups  of
\nMouzas, one or which was Huda Alaipur.\tAppertaining to Huda
\nAlaipur\t are 11 ferries.  The revenue of Alaipur estate\t was
\nfixed  at  (Sicca)  Rs. 10,052\/6, 5  including\t(Sicca)\t Rs.
\n4,500\/-\t as the revenue payable in respect of  the  ferries.
\nBy  Act 17 of 1835 the Sicca Rupees of the Company in  terms
\nof  which the revenue was assessed were converted  into\t New
\nCompany’s Rupees, and-in view of the change in the     coinage
\nfor  every  15\tSicca Rupees 16 New  Company’s\tRupees\twere
\npayable.  The revenue assessed in respect of the 11  ferries
\nwas accordingly fixed at Company Rs. 4,800\/-.  The Zamindars
\nof  Pargana  Goas  were\t before\t and  after  the   permanent
\nsettlement  in possession of the ferries and were  receiving
\nincome by letting out the right to transport passengers\t and
\ngoods and were levying\t tolls on the ferries.\tBetween\t the
\nyears  1857  and 1860 the ferries were in  exercise  of\t the
\npower conferred by Reg.\t VI of 1819 declared public  ferries
\n‘by  the  Government of Bengal, and the then  zamindars\t was
\npaid  as  compensation Rs. 53,923\/4\/6 being  ten  times\t the
\nincome\treceived  from the ferries in the  year\t next  after
\nresumption of the ferries by the Government.\t\tThe,
\nzamindar  claimed  abatement  of revenue in respect  of\t the
\nferries\t resumed by the Government, but no reply  was  given
\nthereto,  and  according to the plaintiff  under  threat  of
\ncoercive action the, plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest the
\nCourt of Wards which was in management for a long time since
\nthe  year 1860, and Raja Bhupendra Narayana Sinha were\tmade
\nto  pay (Sicca) Rs. 4,500\/- per annum as revenue in  respect
\nof  the\t ferries even after the ferry rights had  ceased  to
\nbelong to the Zamindar.\n<\/p>\n
The plaintiff filed in 1945 in the Court of the\t Subordinate
\nJudge,\tMurshidabad,  the  suit out  of\t which\tthis  appeal
\narises.\t The suit was contested by the State of West  Bengal
\non  the pleas,. inter alia, that the ferries resumed by\t the
\nGovernment during the years 1857. to 1860 were not identical
\nwith the ferries described in the Rokhabandi papers of\t1206
\nB.S.  on which the plaintiff relied, that in any  event\t the
\nferries\t appertaining to Huda Alaipur did not form  part  of
\nthe assets of the estate bearing Tauzi No. 523 of the Mur-
\n5 40
\nshidabad  Collectorate\tand the assets of the  ferries\twere
\nnever  taken  into account in assessing the revenue  of\t the
\nestate, that in any case the liability to pay revenue of the
\nferries\t had  not been separately assessed  at\t(Sicca)\t Rs.
\n4,500\/-,  that the suit was barred by the law of  limitation
\nand  estoppel and that the Court had no jurisdiction to\t try
\nthe  suit.   In the opinion of the Trial  Court,  the  Civil
\nCourt had jurisdiction to try the suit,that the suit was not
\nbarred\tby  the law of limitation or by estoppel,  that\t the
\nferries\t described in the Rokhabandi papers of Huda  Alaipur
\nwere  identical with the ferries resumed by  the  Government
\nduring\t1857  to 1860, that the assets of the  ferries\twere
\nincluded  in  Huda  Alaipur which was one of  the  12  Hudas
\nincluded  in Tauzi No. 523 of the Mursbidabad  Collectorate,
\nthat the revenue of the ferries had been separately assessed
\nat (Sicca) Rs. 4,500\/and that the plaintiff was entitled  to
\nabatement  of revenue to the extent of (Sicca)\tRs.  4,500\/-
\ni.e.  Company  Rs. 4,800\/-.  The learned  Judge\t accordingly
\ndecreed the plaintiff’s suit.\n<\/p>\n
The State of West Bengal appealed against that decree to the
\nHigh Court.  During the pendency of the appeal the rights of
\nthe  Zamindar  were extinguished.  The dispute in  the\tHigh
\nCourt was therefore restricted to the right of the plaintiff
\nto recover the arrears of revenue decreed and a\t declaration
\nof the right to obtain refund of the excess revenue paid  by
\nthe  plaintiff between date of the institution of  the\tsuit
\nand the extinction of the interest of the Zamindar.   Before
\nthe  High Court it was urged that the income of\t the,ferries
\ndid not form part of the, assets of Huda Alaipur at the time
\nof  the\t permanent  settlement; that the  ferries  were\t not
\nseparately assessed to revenue at (Sicca) Rs. 4,500\/-;\tthat
\nthe ferries resumed by the Government between 1857 and\t1860
\nwere  not  identical  with  the\t ferries  mentioned  in\t the
\nRokhabandi  paper;  that the suit filed\t by  Raja  Bhupendra
\nNarayan\t Sinha\twas not maintainable;  that  in\t determining
\ncompensation  for the ferries, the Government  had  included
\nthe  value of abatement of the revenue; and that  the  claim
\nfor  declaration  of  abatement was barred  by\tthe  law  of
\nlimitation.    The  High  Court\t decided  the  first   three
\ncontentions in favorite of the plaintiff, and the  remaining
\nin  favour  of\tthe State.  The High  Court  held  that\t the
\ncompensation  amounting\t to Rs. 53,923-4-6  which  was\tten,
\ntimes  the gross collection from the 11 ferries in the\tyear
\nafter  resumption  included  the  value\t of  the  Tight\t  to
\nabatement  claim  and  that in any event  the  claim  for  a
\ndeclaration of abatement of revenue was barred by the law of
\nlimitation.   On the question of the maintainability of\t the
\nsuit  the two learned Judges differed.\tS. K. Sen, J.,\theld
\nthat  the civil court had no jurisdiction to  entertain\t the
\nsuit : Amaresh Roy, J., reached a contrary conclusion.\t But
\nconsequent upon
\n541<\/span>
\nthe findings on the other two issues the High Court reversed
\nthe decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit.
\n‘Ferry’\t means\t“the  right  to keep  a\t boat  for  ferrying
\npassengers,  to\t charge tolls for so doing, and\t to  prevent
\nother  persons from setting up another ferry so near and  in
\nsuch  a\t state\tof facts as to diminish\t the  custom,  is  a
\nfranchise.  It can be created only by grant from the  Crown,
\nby  prescription or by statute” : Dictionary of English\t Law
\nby  Earl  Jowitt.   In India the right to ferry\t is  in\t the
\nnature\tof  a monopoly which entitles a\t ferryman  to  carry
\nexclusively and to collect tolls for carriage of passengers,
\nanimals\t or goods carried over the line of the\tferry.\t The
\nCalcutta High Court in Nityabhari Ray and Ors. v. Dunne\t and
\nOthers(2)  elaborately examined the origin of the  right  to
\nferry in Bengal.  The Court observed
\n\t      “One  of the first rules which the  Government
\n\t      promulgated in 1772 was to suppress the  sayer
\n\t      duties  levied  in Bengal.  On the  11th\tJune
\n\t      1790  a  regulation was  promulgated  for\t the
\n\t      guidance of the Board of\tRevenue\t\twith
\n\t      reference to sayer or internal\tduties.\t That
\n\t      Regulation  was principally  directed  against
\n\t      such  sayer  duties as were levied in hats  or
\n\t      bazars, and the\t   Government,\talthough  it
\n\t      expressly declared in it that  the  imposition
\n\t      and collection of internal duties of any\t   kind
\n\t      were  exclusively its own privilege and  could
\n\t      not   be\texercised  by  any  subject  without
\n\t      express sanction\t   yet,\t in the interest  of
\n\t      the  landlords,  it adjudged it  advisable  to
\n\t      interfere\t as  little  as\t possible  with\t the
\n\t      imposition they levied. This, therefore, is an
\n\t      express  declaration  of Government  that\t the
\n\t      Dewani   had  never  re-cognized\tin   private
\n\t      individuals the right to levy any tolls of the
\n\t      denomination of saver, and this is repeated      in
\n\t      the preamble to Regulation XXVII of 1793. When\tth
\ne
\n\t      Permanent Decennial Settlement was made, the\tre
\nvenue
\n\t      of such zamindari ghats as were allowed was     take
\nn
\n\t      as  an item of the assessment and\t granted  to
\n\t      the   Zamindar.  In  Regulation XIX  of  1816.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 9,      there was a distinct admission
\n\t      of  this\tpractice.  It enacted  that  if\t the
\n\t      profits derived from any resumed ferry   may
\n\t      appear to have been included in the Permanent\tas
\nsessment
\n\t      of the estate to which it has been  heretofore
\n\t      annexed, the Board, or Commissioner, under      whos
\ne
\n\t      orders  the  inquiry into the  nature  of\t the
\n\t      ferry\t was conducted, must report the case
\n\t      for the orders of\t   the\tGovernor-General  in
\n\t      Council………\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   1. L. R. 18 Cal. 652.\n<\/p>\n
\t      542<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      After the time of the Permanent Settlement the
\n\t      same  ferries were established  by  enactment.
\n\t      The first Regulation is XVIII of 1806,  which,
\n\t      dealing  with ferries in the same category  as
\n\t      tolls on boats passing through canals, enacted
\n\t      that  ferries should be established at  places
\n\t      convenient  for  the  public  within  the\t 24-\n<\/p>\n
\t      Pargunnahs, and fixed the rates payable to the
\n\t      ferryman………\t  In  1816  the\t  Government
\n\t      considered  it  expedient\t that  all   ferries
\n\t      should be placed under complete control of the
\n\t      Collectors of Land Revenue.  Every owner of  a
\n\t      ferry was licensed, and other person plying  a
\n\t      boat  for hire was liable to be convicted\t and
\n\t      fined . . . . . . . . I and the boat was to be
\n\t      confiscated.   This Regulation continued\ttill
\n\t      1819, when it was repealed by Regulation VI of
\n\t      that  year, and the ferries were\tthen  placed
\n\t      under  the superintendence of the\t Magistrate.
\n\t      All  important ferries were  declared  public,
\n\t      and  these  the Magistrate had  the  power  to
\n\t      resume.  Other ferries of an unimportant\tkind
\n\t      were  not\t interfered with  further  than\t was
\n\t      necessary\t for the maintenance of\t the  police
\n\t      and the safety of passengers and property.”
\nTwo matters appear clear on the findings of the Trial  Court
\nand  confirmed by the High Court : (1) that the\t revenue  in
\nrespect of the ferries was separately assessed; and (2) that
\nthe right of ferry was recognised as a right to property for
\nresumplion of which the Government of the day was liable  to
\npay compensation.  The ferries were appurtenant to the lands
\nof  the Zamindar each ferry being a connecting link  between
\ntwo  highways on the lands of the plaintiff’s  predecessors.
\nThe  right lo the ferries was resumed by the  Government  in
\nexercise of the power conferred by Reg.\t VI of 1819 and\t the
\nright of the Zamindari\t to receive compensation for loss of
\nthe right wis conceded.\t But   on  the\tresumption  of\t the
\nferries no abatement of revenue\t   payable in respect of the
\nferries\t was  granted.\tThe result was\tsomewhat  anomalous.
\nWhereas\t the  ferries in respect of which  the\trevenue\t was
\nseparately  payable  were taken over by\t the  Government  by
\ncompulsory acquisition or by resumption, the Zamindar  still
\nremained  liable  to pay the revenue assessed  thereon.\t  To
\nmeet  this  argument, Counsel for the State of\tWest  Bengal
\nurged  that within the amount of compensation determined  to
\nbe payable to the Zamindar consequent upon resumption of the
\nferries, was included the capitalized value of the abatement
\nof  revenue payable for the ferries.  Counsel said that\t the
\nGovernment  paid  to  the Zamindar  for\t resumption  of\t the
\nferries\t Rs.  53,923.40 which was ninety one times  the\t net
\nprofit
\n5 4 3
\nmade  by the Zamindar annually.\t He contended on that  hypo-
\nthesis that compensation computed on the basis of ten  times
\nthe  gross  profit earned by the Zamindar, could  only\thave
\nbeen intended to be paid to compensate the Zamindar for\t the
\nloss of the right to the ferries as well as the\t capitalized
\nvalue  of  the\trevenue attributable to\t the  ferries.\t The
\nargument  that\ta larger compensation was paid and  on\tthat
\naccount\t the  plaintiff\t was not entitled  to  abatement  of
\nrevenue\t appealed to the High Court.  But, in our  judgment,
\nthe  record  of\t the case does not  support  the  conclusion
\nreached by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
The correspondence in relation to resumption of the  ferries
\nmay be summarised.  Exhibit C dated June 9, 1854 is a  peti-
\ntion  filed  by Rani Phul Kumari who was then the  owner  of
\nParagatia  Goas.   It is recited in the\t petition  that\t the
\nferries\t had  ceased  to be public ferries  when  they\twere
\nrestored to the applicant’s ancestors in the year 1819 under
\nthe  orders  of the Governor-General in\t Council,  and\tthe,
\nferries\t had  since  been continued in\ther  occupation\t and
\npossession.  But by an order of the Magistrate of  Rajshahye
\nwhich was confirmed by the Superintendent of Police the rate
\nor neerick of the ferries had been considerably lowered\t and
\nthe result of the interference was that the ferries  instead
\nof  being  a source of profit were onerous and a  source  of
\nexpense\t and  trouble.\t The applicant\trequested  that\t the
\ncomplaint  ‘be\tinvestigated and if the complaint  be  found
\ntrue, the applicant may be relieved of payment of the Suddur
\nJumma i.e. revenue.  In a letter dated August 7, 1854 to the
\nSecretary  to  the  Board of Revenue,  the  Commissioner  of
\nNuddea\tDivision,  stated that the statements made  by\tRani
\nPhul  Kumari  were substantially correct,  but\tthe  revenue
\nauthorities  had  no power of interference, and\t that  the
\nreport\tof  the\t Collector of\t Murshidabad  was  that\t the
\npetitioner could not claim any compensation under Reg.\t XIX
\nof 1816 since the provisions of that enactment had not\tbeen
\nenforced  against her and she was not deprived of the  ferry
\nrights.\n<\/p>\n
On  March 15, 1855 the revenue authorities prepared It\tlist
\nof  ferries in District Murshidabad to be  declared  public.
\nIll a  letter  dated September\t16,  1857  the\tMagistrate
\nRajshahye  informed the Commissioner of Rajshahye  that\t the
\nferries in Alaipur belonging to the plaintiff’s predecessors
\ndid  form part\tof the estate at  the  time  of\t decennial
\nsettlement and that out of (Sicca) Rs. 4,500\/-, Rs.  1,000\/-
\nmay fairly represent the portion of\tKoodalghatee (one of
\nthe   eleven  ferries).\t  It  appears  that  it\t  was\tthen
\nrecommended that only the Koodalghatee alone may be  resumed
\nand  the revenue attributable thereto was estimated  at\t Rs.
\n1,000
\n544<\/span>
\nBy  letter  dated  November 25, 1857 of\t the  Government  of
\nBengal\tthe Commissioner of Rajshahye was asked to  intimate
\nto the Zamindar that the Lieutenant Governor was willing  to
\nallow  abatement  of the Jumma of the estate  in  which\t the
\nferry  was  situated  to  the  extent  of  Rs.\t1,000\/-\t  as
\ncompensation for loss of the ferry.\n<\/p>\n
In  letter  dated  January 8, 1858 from\t the  Government  of
\nBengal it was recited that in regard to the compensation for
\nresumption  of the ferries, the Government desired  that  as
\nusual it may be fixed at 10 years’ purchase of profit during
\nthe first year after resumption, unless any other scheme not
\nmore disadvantageous to Government was proposed or agreed to
\nby the owners.\n<\/p>\n
By letter dated April 4, 1860 from the Government of Bengal,
\nthe  Commissioner  of Rajshahye Division was  informed\tthat
\ncertain ferries which were resumed by the Government  orders
\non  the ground that those ferries were the  only  profitable
\nones out of the eleven which were situated upon the estate,,
\nthe  amount of Jumma of Rs. 1,000\/- which had been  remitted
\nwas disproportionately small when compared with the  profits
\nderived from the resumed and unresumed ferries, and that the
\nGovernment had “come to the conclusion” that the most advis-
\nable  course  will  be to declare the whole  of\t the  eleven
\nferries public under the provisions of Regulation VI of 1819
\nand  to compensate the proprietor in the usual\tmanner\twith
\nten  years’ purchase of actual collections during the  first
\nyear of the resumption.”\n<\/p>\n
 By his letter dated September 20, 1860 to the Government of
\nBengal\tthe Commissioner of Rajshahye Division\tstated\tthat
\ntotal  compensation  payable  to the  Zamindar\tfor  the  It
\nferries\t aggregated  to\t Rs.  53,923-4-6  according  to\t the
\nprinciples  determined\tby  the\t Government,  and  that\t the
\nZamindar  of  Pargana Goas had petitioned the  Collector  of
\nMurshidabad on September 3, 1860 that she should be  allowed
\nthe annual remission of revenue to the extent of (Sicca) Rs.
\n4,500\/-\t for all the ferries and soliciting that the  matter
\nmay be adjusted as. soon as possible.\n<\/p>\n
Finally\t by  letter dated November 3, 1860,  the  Government
\nsanctioned payment of Rs. 53,923-4-6 as compensation for the
\neleven\tferries\t of Pargana Goas, and that  the\t arrangement
\ncancelled the offer of a remission of Jumma to the extent of
\nRs. 1,000\/- per annum made in the letter stated November 25,
\n1857, for the Koodalghatty Ferry.\n<\/p>\n
It  is clear that originally it was proposed to resume\tonly
\none  or some but not all the eleven ferries, and  abate\t the
\nrevenue by Rs. 1,000\/-.\t Later it was decided to resume\t all
\nthe ferries
\n545<\/span>
\nin  Huda Alaipur and to pay compensation at ten\t times,\t the
\namount\tof  profit determined “on the basis  of\t one  year’s
\nworking of the ferries” after they were taken over.
\nIt  was urged, however, that the Zamindar was receiving\t out
\nof  the,  11 ferries a gross income of only  Rs.  5,392\/they
\nwere liable to pay Rs. 4,800\/- being the revenue payable  to
\nthe  Government, only the balance of Rs. 592\/-\tremained  on
\nhand with the Zamindar.\t Unless the abatement of revenue was
\ntaken  into  account  the Zamindar, Counsel  for  the  State
\nurged,\tcould not have been given as compensation  nearly  a
\nhundred\t times the amount of the net annual profit from\t the
\nferries.  But the argument proceeds upon several assumptions
\nwhich  are not supported,by evidence.  There is no  evidence
\nthat  the  plaintiff’s\tpredecessors were  making  only\t Rs.
\n5,392\/- gross out of the ferries.  It cannot be assumed that
\nbecause\t the  Government collected from the 11\tferries\t Rs.
\n5,392\/- in the first year after the ferries were taken\tover
\nand  the Zamindar was liable to pay Rs. 4 800\/ that the\t net
\nannual\tprofit\tof the Zamindar from the  ferries  ‘was\t Rs.
\n592\/-\n<\/p>\n
There is nothing in the correspondence to indicate that\t any
\npart  of  the compensation was to  include  the\t capitalised
\nvalue  for abatement of revenue.  The ferries were  regarded
\nas  assets  belonging to the Zamindari and  were  separately
\nassessed  to  revenue.\t It was but just  that\tthe  revenue
\nassessed   upon\t the  ferries  should,\tto  the\t extent\t  of
\nresumption  or\tacquisition of ferries, be abated.   In\t the
\nabsence\t of any evidence to prove that the  Government\ttook
\ninto  account  the  value of abatement of  revenue  and\t the
\nZamindar  agreed to receive compensation, agreeing still  to
\npay  the  revenue  in respect of the  ferries  resumed,\t the
\nconclusion  inevitably\tfollows that on\t the  resumption  or
\nacquisition of the ferries the Zamindar ceased to be  liable
\nto pay the annual revenue assessed upon the ferries.
\nThere is no evidence of a written claim made by the Zamindar
\nfor  abatement of revenue since 1860, and we are  unable  to
\ninfer  from  that  circumstance\t anything  adverse  to\t the
\nplaintiff For many years, the Pargana was in the  possession
\nof  the Court of Wards and it is the case of  the  plaintiff
\nthat  from time to time requests were made for abatement  of
\nrevenue, but no relief was given and the revenue  including
\nthe revenue from the ferries was recovered from the Zamindar
\nunder  threat  of coercive process.  No inference  from\t the
\ndelay in making a claim for abatement of revenue arises.
\nThe  High Court was of the view that the claim made  by\t the
\nplaintiff  was\tbarred\tby  the\t law  of  limitation.\t The
\nplaintiff  was claiming in this suit the amount\t of  revenue
\nrecovered from him
\n5 4 6
\nin excess of the amount lawfully due from him and he claimed
\na  declaration\tthat  the revenue stood\t abated.   Right  to
\ncollect\t revenue  which\t is not due cannot  be\tacquired  by
\nprescription, and if the plaintiff had been compelled to pay
\nsums of money which he was not liable to pay the claim could
\nproperly  be made within three years from the date on  which
\nthe payment was made.  The Trial Court was, in our judgment,
\nright in holding that an amount of Rs. 14,440\/- was properly
\nrecoverable.   The Trial Court was also right  in  declaring
\nthat  there  was  complete extinction of  liability  to\t pay
\nrevenue\t in  respect of the 11 ferries.\t To  the  claim\t for
\ndeclaration of the right to abatement there is, in our judg-
\nment. no bar of limitation.  Each demand for recovery by the
\nGovernment  confers a fresh cause of action.  In any  event,
\nthere is nothing on the record which suggests that the claim
\nfor abatements was refused, before the suit.
\nIt was urged also that the suit as filed in the Civil  Court
\nfor  abatement of revenue was not maintainable.\t  This\tplea
\nwas not raised in the Trial Court.  It was submitted in\t the
\nTrial  Court  that  some  of  the  ferries  in\tquestion  on
\npartition of India fell within the District of Rajshahye  in
\nEast  Pakistan,\t and  on  that account\tthe  Court  has\t no,
\njurisdiction to try the suit.  It is common ground that\t the
\nState of West Bengal was realising the. entire revenue\tfrom
\nthe plaintiff after the partition of India into the Dominion
\nof India and the Dominion of Pakistan, in respect of Account
\nNo.  523-3 of the Murshidabad Collectorate,  notwithstanding
\nthat some ferries formed part of territory of East Pakistan.
\nIn  the\t view of the Trial Court the State  of\tWest  Bengal
\nadopted inconsistent defences.\tWhile realising the revenue,
\nthe State claimed that the entire revenue-paying estate\t was
\nwithin\tits  jurisdiction, but when  the  plaintiff  claimed
\nabatement  of  revenue the State pleaded that  because\tsome
\nportion\t of the property in respect of which  abatement\t was
\nclaimed\t had  fallen within the Dominion  of  Pakistan,\t the
\nCourt  had  no jurisdiction.  It was not  urged\t before\t the
\nTrial  Court that it was incompetent to entertain  the\tsuit
\nfor  abatement\tof revenue.  Before the High Court  the\t two
\nlearned Judges who heard the appeal differed.  Amaresh\tRoy,
\nJ., observed that the State of West Bengal had never  raised
\nthe  plea  that the Civil Court was incompetent to  try\t the
\nsuit.  The learned Judge observed that even after the atten-
\ntion  of  the Government Pleader for the State\twas  invited
\nthereto lie declined to adopt that plea and it was not\topen
\nto  the Court of its own “to take up the contention  and  to
\nnon-)Suit  the\tplaintiff.” S. K. Sen, J., was of  the\tview
\nthat  the  Civil Court was not competent  to  entertain\t the
\nsuit.\tApparently the plea was never raised in the  written
\nstatement and was not argued even after one of the Judges in
\nthe  High  Court  invited  counsel  to\targue  it.   It\t  is
\nundisputed that there is no express bar under any
\n5 4 7
\nof the statutes to the maintainability of the present  suit,
\nnor  is\t our attention invited to any provisions of  law  or
\ncircumstances which may justify an inference to that effect.
\nIn  deference to the view expressed by S. K. Sen J.  we\t may
\nbriefly refer to the statutory and administrative orders  on
\nwhich  reliance\t was  placed by counsel\t for  the  State  to
\nsupport the view expressed by the learned Judges.  Section 9
\nof Regulation XIX of 1816 provided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  the\tevent  of  its\tappearing  that\t the
\n\t      profits  derived\tfrom any resumed  ferry\t may
\n\t      have been included in the permanent settlement
\n\t      of the, estate to which it has heretofore been
\n\t      annexed, the Board or Commissioner under whose
\n\t      orders  the  inquiry may be  conducted,  shall
\n\t      report  the circumstances, with an opinion  on
\n\t      the merits of the claim, for the consideration
\n\t      and orders of the Governor-General in Council;
\n\t      and  the courts of judicature shall  not\ttake
\n\t      cognizance  of  any  claim  to  deductions  or
\n\t      compensations  on account of the tolls  levied
\n\t      at any ferry or ghaut.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This section does not exclude the jurisdiction of the  Civil
\nCourt  to  entertain  a\t claim\tfor  abatement\tof   revenue
\nseparately  assessed in respect of a ferry which  has  been-
\nresumed or has been compulsorily acquired.  Regulation 19 of
\n1816  was  repealed by Regulation VI of 1819  by  which\t the
\nmanagement of the ferries was transferred from the Collector
\nto  the\t Magistrate.  Clause III of Regulation VI  of  1819,
\ninsofar as it is relevant, provided
\n\t      “First.\t No  ferries  shall   be   hereafter
\n\t      considered public ferries, except such as\t may
\n\t      be,  situated at or near the Sadr Stations  of
\n\t      the severed Magistrates or Joint\tMagistrates,
\n\t      or  such as may intersect the  chief  military
\n\t      routes or other much frequented roads, or such
\n\t      as  from special considerations it may  appear
\n\t      advisable\t to place under the  more  immediate
\n\t      management   of  the  Magistrates\t and   Joint
\n\t      Magistrates.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Second.  The Government reserves to itself the
\n\t      power  of determining from time to time,\twhat
\n\t      ferries  shall  under the\t preceding  rule  be
\n\t      deemed  public ferries and as such  shall\t be,
\n\t      subject  to  the\timmediate  control  of\t the
\n\t      Magistrates and Joint Magistrates,
\n\t      Third.   It  will be the duty of\tthe  Several
\n\t      Magistrates  and Joint Magistrates to  prepare
\n\t      lists  of the ferries which in their  judgment
\n\t      should under the foregoing rules be
\n\t      548<\/span>
\n\t      considered  to be public ferries, and  transit
\n\t      them    as   soon\t  prepared    through\t the
\n\t      Superintendents of Police for the\t information
\n\t      and orders of Government.”\n<\/p>\n
Clause IV dealt with the power of appointing proper  persons
\nto  the\t charge of the public ferries, for  the\t purpose  of
\nregulating  the number\tand description\t of  boats  to\tbe
\nmaintained  for\t preventing, exactions-\t and  generally\t for
\npromoting  the efficiency of the Police and the\t safety\t and
\nconvenience  of the community.\tClause VI declared that\t the
\nexclusive  right  to  ply public  ferries  shall  belong  to
\nGovernment and no person shall be allowed to, employ a ferry
\nboat  plying for hire without the previous sanction  of\t the
\nMagistrate.  The other clauses dealt with the procedure\t and
\npowers\tof  the Magistrate with regard\tto  public  ferries.
\nThis  Regulation dealt with the power of the  Government  of
\nBengal\tto declare a particular ferry to be a  public  ferry
\nand to manage it.  There is nothing in the Regulation  which
\nexcludes  the jurisdiction of the civil Court in the  matter
\nof revenue qua a private ferry resumed, ,or acquired.
\nRegulation  VI of 1819 was repealed by Act 1 of 1866.  By  2
\nof Act 1 of 1866 Act it was provided that every ferry  which
\nhas  been  or may be declared to be public ferry  under\t the
\nprovisions of Regulation VI of 1819 shall belong exclusively
\nto the Government.  By S. 4 it was provided that all  claims
\nfor  compensation  which may be preferred by any  person  or
\npersons\t for  loss  which  may\tbe  sustained  by  them\t  in
\nconsequence  of\t any ferry having been\tdeclared  public  as
\naforesaid  shall  be inquired into by such  Magistrate,\t who
\nshall  award compensation to any such person or persons\t who
\nmay  appear justly entitled thereto.  But Act 1 of 1866\t has
\nno   application   because  the\t  ferries   of\t plaintiff’s
\npredecessor were resumed by the Government between the years
\n1857 and 1860.\tIn any case there is nothing to show in\t any
\nof the provisions to which our attention was invited that  a
\nsuit for abatement of revenue for resumption of the  ferries
\nis excluded from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
\nIn   Secretary\t of   State  for   India   in\tCouncil\t  v.
\nMaharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh Bahadur(1) on which  Counsel
\nfor the State relied it was held by the High Court of  Patna
\nthat  the  jurisdiction\t of the Civil Court  was  barred  by
\nimplication  in respect of a suit filed on the\tground\tthat
\ncompensation  awarded was inadequate and was based on  wrong
\nprinciple.   That case has, in our judgment, no\t bearing  on
\nthe   present\tcase.\tThe  method  for   determining\t the
\ncompensation  is  provided by Act 1 of 1885  and  the  Civil
\nCourt’s jurisdiction to determine compensation may pro tanto may b
\ne deemed excluded.\n<\/p>\n
(1)I.L. R. 15 Pat. 246.\n<\/p>\n
5 4 9
\nReliance  was  also placed upon r. 159 in the  Bengal  Tauzi
\nManual, 1940, which contains rules for the collection of and
\naccounting,  for  land revenue and cesses in  Bengal.\tRule
\n159, insofar as it is relevant, provided :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The power of sanctioning abatement of the re-<\/p>\n
\t      venue  or rent demand of an estate during\t the
\n\t      currency of a settlement will be exercised  by
\n\t      Collectors,  Commissioners, and the  Board  of
\n\t      Revenue as shown below
\nThe  diverse  clauses of r. 159 vested\tpower  in  different
\nclasses\t of  officers  to  sanction  abatement\tof  rent  or
\nrevenue.  For instance, the Collector had power to  sanction
\nabatement of rent or revenue upto a total of Rs. 1,5001-  in
\na  single  year\t in  all  estates  managed  direct  by\t the
\nProvincial  Government\t:  the\tCommissioner  had  power  to
\nsanction  abatement of revenue upto Rs. 5,000\/.\t  Again\t the
\nCollector  had\tpower to sanction abatement  of\t revenue  in
\ntemporarily-settled estates bearing a revenue not  exceeding
\nRs. 5001-.  It was also stated that the Collector had  power
\nto sanction in all estates abatements in consequence of\t the
\nacquisition  of\t land under the Land Acquisition  Act  1  of
\n1894,  and the Board of Revenue alone had power to  sanction
\nabatements  due\t to  diluvion, ascertained  after  a  survey
\nconducted  under Act IX of 1847.  The Board alone had  power
\nto sanction abatement of rent or revenue in other cases\t not
\nspecified in r. 159.  The Bengal Tauzi Manual 1940 does\t not
\ndisclose the authority under which it was published, and the
\nsanction  behind the rules.  The Board of Revenue from\ttime
\nto    time   published\t instructions\trelating   to\t the
\nadministration of revenue laws.\t The rules and instructions
\nset  out in the Manual are apparently not  statutory.\tEven
\nassuming  that\tthey  are  statutory  there  is\t nothing  to
\nindicate  that\tthey exclude the jurisdiction of  the  Civil
\nCourt in respect of matters relating to abatement of revenue
\nin  the civil suits, and as rightly conceded by counsel\t for
\nthe State of West Bengal there is no evidence that any\trule
\nlike  r. 159 was in operation at the time when\tthe  ferries
\nbelonging  to the Zamindar were resumed or :acquired by\t the
\nGovernment of the Province of Bengal.\n<\/p>\n
S.   K.\t Sen, I., was, in our judgment, in error in  holding
\nthat  the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to  entertain\t the
\nclaim  for abatement of revenue and for a  declaration\tthat
\nthe  plaintiff was not liable to pay revenue in\t respect  of
\nthe ferries which were resumed by the Government.
\nThe  appeal is allowed.\t The order passed by the High  Court
\nis  set\t aside and the order passed by the  Trial  Court  is
\nrestored with costs in this Court and in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t     Appeal allowed,\n8-L436 Sup Cl\/71\n5 50\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1245, 1971 SCR (2) 537 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: RANENDRA NARAYAN SINHA & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/10\/1970 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRanendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-21T04:40:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T04:40:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\"},\"wordCount\":5240,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\",\"name\":\"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T04:40:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-21T04:40:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970","datePublished":"1970-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T04:40:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970"},"wordCount":5240,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970","name":"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T04:40:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ranendra-narayan-sinha-ors-vs-state-of-west-bengal-on-12-october-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ranendra Narayan Sinha & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 12 October, 1970"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48070","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}