Bengal Government Estates Manual, 1932

 

 

Rules-65 & 66 Read with Rule-85

Rent receipt is not being formally proved of S. A. Khatian being a collusive one, whether the plaintiff cart claim their title to the disputed land?

There are “Government Estates” the settlement of which was governed by Rules 65 read with Rule 85 the Estates Manual, 1932. Some formalities were required to be observed in granting settlement of either “Government Estates” or ‘Town Khas Mahal Lands” mere payment of rent to khas mahal department may be a collateral evidence of title, but collateral evidence does not assume the character of direct evidence of title.

In the absence of any record of settlement by way of observing any formalities provided in the different Rules of the Manual, 1932 the plaintiffs cannot be given a declaration of title over the suit land merely on production of collateral evidence.

[Paras-16 & 17]

Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. Shahani & Ors 3 BLT (AD)-68.

Bengal Government Estates Manual, 1932

Bengal Government Estates Manual, 1932

Rules-65 & 66 Read with Rule 85

Rent receipt is not being formally proved of
S.A. Khatian being a collusive one, whether the plaintiff can claim their title
to the disputed land?

There
are “Government Estates” the settlement of which was governed by Rules 65 read
with Rule 85 the Estates Manual, 1932. Some formalities were required to be,
observed in granting settlement of either “Government Estates’ or “Town Khas
Mahal Lands” mere payment of rent to khas mahal department may be a collateral
evidence of title. but a collateral evidence does not assume the character of direct
evidence of title.

In the
absence of any record of settlement by way of observing any formalities
provided in the different Rules of the Manual. 1932 the plaintiffs cannot be
given a declaration of title over the suit land merely on production of collateral
evidence.

Govt. of Bangladesh
& Ors. Vs. Shahani & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-68

Bengal Regulation-II of 1937 Regulation-2 read
with Income Tax Ordinance, 1984 Paragraph-27 of Part-A of the Sixth Schedule

In the
instant case there is no dispute that the petitioner ‘is an indigenous hillman
and his business ‘activities in supplying the rice under contracts to the
Government is an economic activity. But for supply of rice outside the
aforesaid hill districts under the contract, the petitioner is not entitled to
exemption of payment of income tax as the income derived by the petitioner is
from the economic activity carried on outside the hill districts.

Sampriti Chakma Vs.
Commissioner of Customs & Ors 8 BLT (AD)-202.