JUDGMENT Mitter, J. - In 1907 one Mobarak Ali. applied to the Government for settlement of 174 drones 8 kanis 1 ganda and 2 cottas (=113872 acres) of Noabad land belonging to the Government. That area was then covered with jungle. In his application he stated that he was willing to take the settlement " according to the practice of settlement of such lands." That meant that he was prepared to take settlement according to usual terms and conditions on which Noabad lands are settled by the Government. That application was granted and a tenure Jote No. 114|1 was created. There was a jamabandi which fixed the rent at Rs. 175 a year (Ex. 5, II, 6) from 1314 B.S. He was let into possession. Later on he was asked to execute the kabuliyat but he evaded the request with the result that there is no written document which shows the terms and conditions of the settlement. In the jamabandi, Ex. 5, there is a column for entering the date and the terms "as mentioned in the patta." There being no patta or kabuliyat in this case, the terms and conditions of the settlement were not noted in that column but only the date of commencement of the settlement was mentioned. As the purpose of the jamabandi was to fix the rent, the rent assessed was mentioned in the appropriate column and the date from which the rent so assessed was to run was also stated. Later on Mobarak Ali sold 8 annas of his interest to one Nilambar and the remaining 8 annas to Santinidhan. Nilambar in his turn sold his share to one Nrityaranjan, who could not pay down the whole of the price, for the balance of which (Rs. 3,000) both Nrityaranjan and Santinidhan executed a mortgage in favour of Nilambar, charging their interest in the said land. In 1927 Nilambar sued Nrityaranjan and Santinidhan for his money and ultimately got a final decree for Rs. 7,752. In execution thereof the mortgaged premises were sold and were purchased by the Appellant Bank for Rs. 400 only on the 11th March, 1936. The said Bank took symbolical possession on the 18th October, 1936, but could not get actual possession in the circumstances to be narrated hereafter. 2. 7,752. In execution thereof the mortgaged premises were sold and were purchased by the Appellant Bank for Rs. 400 only on the 11th March, 1936. The said Bank took symbolical possession on the 18th October, 1936, but could not get actual possession in the circumstances to be narrated hereafter. 2. The said Bank accordingly brought this suit on the 2nd October, 1937, for possession of the said area of land included in Jote No. 114|1. There was an alternative prayer, namely for "compensation and mesne profits " in case it cannot for any reason get possession. 3. Mobarak Ali and his successors-in-interest, Nilambar, Santinidhan and Nrityaranjan could not reclaim the whole area of Jote No. 114|1. By the end of 1929 only 437-29 acres had been cleared and brought under cultivation. The remaining area of 701 43 acres was uncleared. 4. A portion of this unreclaimed area of 701 43 acres, namely 464 05 acres, was then covered with forest and the remaining portion namely 237 38 acres was the site of forest-clad hillocks. Sometime in the year 1924 or 1925, (the exact date or year, does not appear from the record, nor is the precise date material) a survey and settlement under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act was started. This survey and settlement is called the revisional settlement in this suit. In the course of that survey the area reclaimed and the area not reclaimed were surveyed and mapped separately. We have mentioned above the area that was found to have been cleared and brought under cultivation and the area still unreclaimed. The area unreclaimed portion was classified in the manner indicated above. The area reclaimed, namely 437 39 acres and the area of 237 38 acres of unreclaimed lands were recorded in the draft Khatian in the name of Santinidhan and Nrityaranjajn and the remaining area of unreclaimed land, namely 464 05 acres was recorded in the khas khatian of the Government. Under Part II of Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, only the reclaimed area of 437 29 acres was assessed at Rs. 252 a year and in the finally published record-of-rights that area of 437 29 acres was recorded as a separate tenure, Jote No. 96, at a rent of Rs. Under Part II of Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, only the reclaimed area of 437 29 acres was assessed at Rs. 252 a year and in the finally published record-of-rights that area of 437 29 acres was recorded as a separate tenure, Jote No. 96, at a rent of Rs. 252 and was recorded in the names of Santinidhan and Nrityaranjan and the remaining area, namely 701 43 acres, made up of the aforesaid two blocks of unreclaimed land, namely, 237 38 and 464 05 acres, was recorded as the khas lands of the Government. As the Government had a mind to include the said area of 701 43 acres within a reserved forest, the requisite preliminary notification under sec. 4 of the Indian Forest Act was issued and duly published and a proclamation inviting claims was duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Santinidhan and Nrityaranjan filed a claim under sec. 6, sub-sec. (c) of that Act before the Forest Settlement Officer in respect of the said 237 38 acres of land which had been recorded in their possession in the draft khatian but no claim was preferred by them in respect of the other piece of unreclaimed land, namely 464 05 acres which had been recorded in the draft khatian in the name of the Government. This claim was rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer by an order dated the 4th August, 1930 (Ex. G--II, 14). Against that order the claimants preferred an appeal to the Collector under the provisions of sec. 17 of that Act. The claimants urged before the Collector, as they had done before the Forest Settlement Officer, that they held the said area in permanent tenure right. The Collector dismissed the appeal by an order, dated the 17th January, 1931 (Ex. C not printed). He held that the claimants had failed to prove that their tenure, (Jote No. 114|11) was a permanent one, that they having failed to clear the jungle in time, the Government had the right to resume the said area of land and that the Government had rightfully resumed the same. He held that they were not entitled to any compensation for the said area of land. Thereafter on the 26th May, 1931, the notification under sec. He held that they were not entitled to any compensation for the said area of land. Thereafter on the 26th May, 1931, the notification under sec. 20 of the Indian Forest Act was published and the whole area of 701 43 acres was included in a reserved forest. Santinidhan and Nrityaranjan who had taken the settlement of the reclaimed area of 437 29 acres recorded as Jote No. 96 at the settled rent of Rs. 252, fell into arrears and that tenure was put up to sale under the Public Demands Recovery Act and the Government purchased the same at the nominal price of three pies on the 4th November, 1933. The Plaintiff having purported to have purchased the lands of the said tenure, Jote No. 114|1, at the mortgage sale, has sued the Province of Bengal for the reliefs which we have noticed above. The claim rests upon two grounds, namely (1) that Jote No. 114|11 was a permanent tenure and the Government had no right to split it up and resume a portion thereof and (2) in any event even if the tenure was a non-permanent one, the Government had not terminated it in a legal manner and the whole proceeding, including the proceeding taken under the Indian Forest Act, is illegal. The Province of Bengal in its written statement denied that Santinidhan and Nrityaranjan's heirs and thereafter the Plaintiff Bank had any subsisting right to any portion of the said area of 1138 72 acres but at the hearing did not resist the Plaintiff's claim to the lands of Jote No. 96. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Plaintiff had no right to the lands in claim save and except the lands of Jote No. 96. He made a decree in respect of the lands of that jote and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim to the rest. Hence this appeal by the Bank. 5. The first question in the appeal is what were the rights of Mobarak Ali in Jote No. 114|1. It is clear from his application that he offered to take settlement on the usual terms and conditions on which Noabad lands were being settled. That offer was accepted. The settlement to him was in tenure right. The terms and conditions imported into the settlement were therefore the terms and conditions on which Noabad taluks were being then granted by the Government. That offer was accepted. The settlement to him was in tenure right. The terms and conditions imported into the settlement were therefore the terms and conditions on which Noabad taluks were being then granted by the Government. To determine the said question it would be necessary to go into the revenue history of Noabad lands in the District of Chittagong. 6. In 1760 Nawab Mir Jafar Khan was deposed from the Governorship of Bengal and his son-in-law, Nawab Mir Kasim, was elevated in his place by the East India Company. By a treaty of that year the three Districts of Burd-wan, Midnapore and Chittagong were ceded by the Nawab to the Company ostensibly for the purpose of enabling the latter to meet the expenses of the army which the Company agreed; to maintain for the support and assistance of the Nawab. In 1763 Nawab Mir Kasim was deposed and Nawab Mir Jafar was re-instated. He confirmed the grant of Nawab Mir Kasim of the said three Districts. At that time more than 5|7th of the District of Chittagong was unreclaimed and only about 2|7th had been brought under cultivation since the Mogul conquest of 1666 by the refugees from Arakan, the Mughs, and some settlers from Bengal. The reclaimed lands which were mostly in the northern part of the District did not form a compact block but lay scattered about like oases in a desert. This was the condition which the East India Company found in 1760. In 1761 the Government published a general advertisement to settle the waste lands on favourable terms and Joy-narayan Ghoshal, the nephew of the then Dewan of the Company in charge of the revenue administration of the District, applied for such a settlement and his prayer was granted. This grant is known as Joynagar Taluk. In 1764-1765 a rough survey and measurement was made of all lands which had been brought under cultivation. The area of such reclaimed lands was found to be 609 square miles, of which 575 square miles were included in various estates called Taraps and the remainder, 34 square miles, was measured as appertaining to Jaynagar Taluk. The first-mentioned area was settled with the Tarafdars in 1790 for ten years under the Decennial Settlement Regulation which was made permanent ill 1793. (O'Malley's District Gazetteer of Chittagong, p. 143) Taluk Jaynagar was never settled permanently. The first-mentioned area was settled with the Tarafdars in 1790 for ten years under the Decennial Settlement Regulation which was made permanent ill 1793. (O'Malley's District Gazetteer of Chittagong, p. 143) Taluk Jaynagar was never settled permanently. The lands of Taluk Jaynagar and the lands reclaimed after the measurement of 1764-65 are known as Noabad lands and the Government is the proprietor thereof. About the year 1790 or so, Joynarayan Ghoshal claimed all the lands of the District which were waste in 1763 as within his grant and set up a forged sanad in support of his claim. The Government thereupon attached all his lands. A suit resulted and in 1815 the Sudder Dewany Adalat held that Joy Narayan was entitled to be restored to possession of so much of the land which he had brought under cultivation before 1764 and which were recorded as cultivated in the survey and measurement of 1764-65 but he had no right to the rest of the land. An infructuous survey was made thereafter to work out that decree. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the point before us to detail what took place between 1815 and 1837. As the Tarafdars had been going on since 1764 reclaiming lands adjoining their estates and professing to hold the lands so encroached upon as parts of their estates and many persons had been setting up false claims to hold reclaimed lands as lakheraj, a general survey of the whole District was ordered in 1837. This survey and the work of settlement was eventually conducted by Mr. Ricketts who concluded his work in 1848. The lands of the Tarafs were demarcated from the lands encroached upon by the Tarafdars and the area brought under cultivation by other agencies since 1765 were also defined and demarcated. The excess lands occupied by the Tarafdars were assessed and settled with them separately, that is not included in the Tarafs, and for terms of years. Other lands were also settled for terms of years. In some cases the period of the settlement was for thirty years, later extended by twenty years more, and in some cases for terms of five to ten years, subse-quently extended to twenty-five years. Mr. Other lands were also settled for terms of years. In some cases the period of the settlement was for thirty years, later extended by twenty years more, and in some cases for terms of five to ten years, subse-quently extended to twenty-five years. Mr. Rickett had recommended permanent settlement but the Board of Revenue as a matter of general policy in respect of Noabad lands did not accede to his proposal but directed settlement for terms of years as stated above. One of the conditions of the settlement of Noabad lands was that the settlement-holder would have no right to the area of land that may be found unreclaimed at the expiry of the period of his settlement. (Allen's Report of the Survey and Settlement of Chittagong, p. 70, Para 224). This has been the feature of settlement of all Noabad lands and it is one of the usual condition of such settlements (Hunter's Statistical Accounts of Bengal, Vol. 6, pp. 170 and 171). Under some misconception Lord Dalhousie, after his visit to Chittagong in 1853, directed that the Noabad lands which had been settled as Noabad Taluks for terms of years should be incorporated with the Tarafs and settled permanently with the Tarafdars. The misconception was that all Noabad lands had been separated from some Taraf or other, whereas it was in fact not so, as would appear from the summary of Rickett's survey given by Sir Charles Allen (Allen's Report, p. 66, para. 212). Lord Dalhousie's orders were not communicated to the Talukdars by the Commissioner. In 1863, however, Sir Cecil Beadon directed the permanent settlement of all Noabad lands but the offer of permanent settlement made by the Government was hedged in by conditions which wrecked the scheme of permanent settlement of Noabad lands. Only 360 Talukdars out of 29,743 accepted the offer and those taluks were permanently settled (Allen's Report, p. 70, Hunter's Statistical Account, Vol. 6, pp. 172 to 173). In 1869 the Board of Revenue again recommended permanent settlements of Noabad lands but the Government turned it down. Except for the brief period between 1865 and 1867 when only 360 permanent settlements of Noabad lands were made, Noabad lands had all along been settled temporarily. Settlements for fixed periods became the invariable rule in respect of Noabad lands (Allen's Report, p. 69, Para. 220). Except for the brief period between 1865 and 1867 when only 360 permanent settlements of Noabad lands were made, Noabad lands had all along been settled temporarily. Settlements for fixed periods became the invariable rule in respect of Noabad lands (Allen's Report, p. 69, Para. 220). Three things are apparent from the revenue history of Noabad lands of Chittagong, namely, (1) that the settlements were not proprietary ones, (2) that the settlements were temporary--for terms of years, and (3) that the settlement-holder had no right to those portions of land which had not been brought under cultivation by him within the period of his settlement. At the end of the term of settlement the Government had the right to take away the unreclaimed land without paying any compensation. On these materials the Appellant Bank cannot claim any permanent interest in the lands of Jote No. 114|1. Mobarak Ali prayed for and was granted the settlement on the usual terms and conditions on which Noabad lands were being settled by Government. For the same reason the Appellant Bank cannot have any right to that portion which was not brought under cultivation within the period of the settlement concluded with Mobarak Ali and the Government had the right to take possession thereof at the expiry of that settlement which was made in 1907. The only other question therefore that remains is what was the term or period of that settlement. If that settlement expired on or before 1929, when the area of 701 43 acres of land which has been included in the reserved forest, was found to be unreclaimed, Santinadhan and Nrityaranjan's right to the same ceased and the Government had the right to do whatever it liked with that area of waste land. 7. Between 1842 and 1848 settlements were made for terms of years. The terms of all those settlements were to expire by 1898. Since Rickett's Survey and Settlement the District as a whole had not been surveyed. Mr. Fasson made a partial survey in 1875 and some re-settlements had been made between 1875 to 1882 but the term of those settlements were also to expire in or before 1898. The terms of all those settlements were to expire by 1898. Since Rickett's Survey and Settlement the District as a whole had not been surveyed. Mr. Fasson made a partial survey in 1875 and some re-settlements had been made between 1875 to 1882 but the term of those settlements were also to expire in or before 1898. For the purpose of re-assessment and re-settlement of those taluks and also to find out new lands brought under cultivation since Rickett's general survey, Government thought it advisable to survey the entire District in time so that re-settlements may be made in 1898 when the periods of settlement of all the Noabad lands which had hitherto been settled would expire. In 1889 a notification was issued for survey of the whole District and settlement under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act and Sir Charles Allen was put in charge of the operations as the Settlement Officer. He completed his work in 1898. The old Noabad taluks were re-settled as also the other clearances which were discovered at that survey. Many other settlements for reclamation of more jungle lands were made. All these new settlements and re-settlements were made for terms of years. The Noabad lands within Thana Ramu were settled up to Chaitra, 1330 (April, 1924) and the rest up to Chaitra, 1331 (April, 1925). Paragraph 429, page 125 of Sir Charles Allen's Settlement Report, to which we have referred before, deals with these settlements only, namely those made in 1898. As Jote No. 114|1 was created after 1898, that paragraph does not in terms apply to it. After the conclusion of the survey and settlement under Chapter X, Bengal Tenancy, Sir Charles Allen, the Settlement Officer, ceased to function and the matter of settlement of Noabad lands thereafter was made over, as is usual in such cases, to the Collector of the District. 8. During the course of the Survey and Settlement operations by Sir Charles Allen, matters of general importance relating to Noabad lands were discussed and a definite and general scheme for settlement and re-settlement in future was discussed and settled. That scheme is of importance in the case before us. One of the matters formulated in that scheme related to the period for which such settlements were to be made in future. That scheme is of importance in the case before us. One of the matters formulated in that scheme related to the period for which such settlements were to be made in future. For the purpose of convenience and methodical dealing, Sir Charles Allen proposed that the period of all settlements of Noabad land should be so fixed that they may terminate at the same time. That principle was accepted by the Government. In a minute dated the 23rd January, 1893, he suggested that a fixed expiring date of all settlements should be made for lands within each thana. In that minute he also suggested other rules for general observance in settlements of Noabad land. After some correspondence he embodied his suggestions in draft rules which he forwarded to the Commissioner of the Chittagong Division by his letter No. 761G, dated the 6th September, 1893 (Noabad Selections, Vol. 6, pages 151 and 152). He suggested that those rules were to be observed in all settlements that may be made then or in future. Rule 5 of the draft rules runs as follows: Terms of settlement:--'The settlement should ordinarily be granted for a term, which will expire at the same time as the Noabad taluki settlement of the Thana in which the lands are situate. 9. In respect of r. 5 the only modification that was made by the Government was that instead of separate expiring dates being fixed for each thana, one expiring date should be fixed for the whole of the District (see Noabad Selections, Vol. VI, page 132, paragraph 8). The draft rules as made by Sir Charles Allen with the said and some other modification were accepted and promulgated by the Board of Revenue's Circular No. 5 of May 1895 (Allen's Report, page 125, paragraph 427 and Board's Revenue Circulars, 1894 and 1895, p. 100). The position thus is that settlement of Noabad lands, whenever to be made, were to be made accordingly to these rules and the aforesaid circular order of the Board laid down that the term of all settlements of Noabad land to be made thereafter is to be so fixed that the expiry of all such settlements may be on the same date (see Para. 11 of the rules as printed at p. 102 of the Board's Circulars of 1894 and 1895). 11 of the rules as printed at p. 102 of the Board's Circulars of 1894 and 1895). This date the Board subsequently fixed to be April, 1924, for the Noabad lands within thana Ramu and April, 1925, for Noabad lands in the rest of the District by an order embodied in letter No. 986A, dated the 10th October, 1896, written by the Secretary to the Board of Revenue to the Secretary to the Government of Bengal, Revenue Department (Noabad Selections, Vol. VI, p. 130). Paragraphs 8 to 11 of that letter are important. The conclusion to which we come from the above materials, which we have gathered from books of authority and Government publications, and which support the evidence given by Bidhubhusan Gupta, is that the usual conditions on which Noabad lands were being settled at the relevant time, are (i) that the settlements were to be for fixed periods, (ii) that the term of every settlement concluded after 1898 was to end in April, 1925, except with regard to lands in Thana Ramu, where the date fixed was April, 1924, and (iii) the settlement-holder would lose all right to the area of land which was rot brought under cultivation during the period of his settlement. 10. Those terms were incorporated into the settlement of Jote No. 114|1 by reason of the form of Mobarak Ali's application. Santinidhan and Nritya-ranjan had therefore no right after April, 1924, to any portion of the aforesaid area of 701 43 acres of land which were found waste at the Revisional Settlement operations of 1925-1929 and which was thereafter included in the reserved forest. 11. Apart from the reasons given above, we are of opinion that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as to that area of land for the following additional reasons. Santinidhan and Nrityaran-jan preferred claims before the Forest Settlement Officer in respect of 237 38 acres out of that waste area under sec. 6 (c) of Indian Forest Act. That claim was investigated under sec. 7 and rejected by that officer. They preferred an appeal to the Collector under sec. 17. That appeal was dismissed. No application in revision was made to the Local Government. The Appellate order thus has become final under sec. 6 (c) of Indian Forest Act. That claim was investigated under sec. 7 and rejected by that officer. They preferred an appeal to the Collector under sec. 17. That appeal was dismissed. No application in revision was made to the Local Government. The Appellate order thus has become final under sec. 18 (4) and the Civil Court has no power to restore the said piece of land or to grant compensation in respect thereto to Santinidhan or Nrityaranjan or to their successor-in-interest, when the order of the Collector in the appeal was that they had no interest therein and were not entitled to compensation. With regard to the balance, namely 464 05 acres of waste land no claim was preferred to the Forest Settlement Officer under sec. 6 (c). It does not appear that that officer had acquired any knowledge about the rights of Santinidhan and Nrityaranjan in the same in the course of an enquiry under sec. 7. On the publication of the notification under sec. 20, whatever rights those persons had in that area became extinguished by virtue of the provisions of sec. 9. 12. For the above reasons we hold that the Appellant is not entitled to succeed in respect of the said area of 701 43 acres which has been included in the reserved forest. 13. The last point that has been argued by the Appellant's Advocate is that the Court below ought to have granted the Plaintiff Bank a decree for mesne profits in respect of the lands of Jote No. 96 for which a decree for possession has been made in its favour. The learned Subordinate Judge has rightly held that no such prayer was made in the plaint. The said learned Advocate feels the force of the observations of the learned Subordinate Judge and prays for permission to amend prayer No. 2 of his plaint at this stage. We cannot accede to that request. The Province of Bengal had purchased that Jote (No. 96) in execution of a certificate for arrears of rent. It pleaded in its written statement that the Plaintiff Bank had no right to that jote also. At the hearing it confessed judgment in respect thereto. It may be that had there been a claim for mesne profits in the plaint, the contest in respect of that jote would not have been withdrawn. It pleaded in its written statement that the Plaintiff Bank had no right to that jote also. At the hearing it confessed judgment in respect thereto. It may be that had there been a claim for mesne profits in the plaint, the contest in respect of that jote would not have been withdrawn. In these circumstances we do consider that it would not be fair to the Province of Bengal if the amendment asked be granted at this stage. 14. We are very much indebted to Mr. Mookerjee, Assistant Government Pleader of this Court, for valuable assistance he gave us in this case. The result is that this appeal fails. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Hearing-fee, 15 gold mohurs.