JUDGMENT 1. The facts material for the purposes of the present appeal may be shortly stated as follows : By a registered potta dated 6th May 1907, the predecessor in-interest of Tulsi Chandra Goswami settled with the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant company a parcel of high lands measuring about 96 bighas on a selami of Rs. 500 per bigha and at a fixed annual rent of Rs. 25 per bigha and a parcel of contiguous chur lands measuring about 19 bighas on a selami of Rs. 300 per bigha and at a fixed annual rent of Rs. 15 per bigha. It was also provided by the said potta that future accretions to the chur lands would be held by the lessee free of rent, provided nevertheless that if at any time any portion of the chur lands or future accretions thereto should attain a level equal to or higher than that of the high lands, selami and rent would be payable for the same at the same rate as fixed for the high lands. The purpose of the lease was to enable the lessee to erect a jute mill or other factory on the demised lands. It appears that in course of time a large tract of land measuring about 33 bighas accreted to the demised chur lands by the fluvial action of the river Ganges. These alluvial accretions were formed into a separate Diara Mahal bearing Touzi NO. 3226 of the Collectorate of 24-Parganas and temporarily settled with the plaintiff's predecessor. The daira proceedings were started in the year 1931 in respect of these accreted lands. The material passage in the original notification (EX. 2) was as follows : ... and whereas it appears that such land has been gained by alluvion since the permanent or Diara settlement, such land is under the terms of S. 3(2), Regn. 2 [II] of 1819 liable to assessment to Government revenue and the rent of all under-tenants in such lands is under S. 2, Bengal Alluvial Land Settlement Act, 31 [XXXI] of 1858, or under S. 104, Ben. Ten. Act, 8 [VIII] of 1885, liable to determination. Notice is hereby given... that rents will be determined therein. There is no dispute, and indeed it appears from Exs. 2 and 3, that notices, summonses and extracts of preliminary proceedings were duly served on the defendant company or their agents. Ten. Act, 8 [VIII] of 1885, liable to determination. Notice is hereby given... that rents will be determined therein. There is no dispute, and indeed it appears from Exs. 2 and 3, that notices, summonses and extracts of preliminary proceedings were duly served on the defendant company or their agents. No objection appears to have been filed by or on behalf of the defendant company. In his final report (EX. E) the Revenue Officer recorded as follows, inter alia : The following rates of rent have been adopted for the purpose of the valuation of the accretions in possession of the Mill Company. Rupees 18, Rs. 30, Rs. 45, Rs. 60, Rs. 75, Rs. 90 per acre; the assessment has been made under the provisions of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. The C. S. Khatian (Ex. 4) shows that the Revenue Officer settled Rs. 495 as the fair and equitable rent for an area of 33 bighas of accreted lands at Rs. 15 per bigha, which was the rent fixed for the chur lands in the potta dated 6th May 1907. 2. In 1939 the appellant as the Receiver of the estate of Tulsi Chandra Goswami instituted the present Money Suit No. 6 of 1939 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore against the defendant company for recovery of arrears of rent of these accreted lands for the years 1342 B. S. to 1345 B. S. at the rate of Rs. 495 per year with interest thereon. In the plaint it was alleged that Rs.495 had been fixed by the Revenue Officer as fair and equitable rent of the accreted lands under chap. x, Part II, Bengal Tenancy Act. 3. The defendant company appeared in the suit and filed a written statement. The defences taken by the defendant company were, inter alia, that the lands being non-agricultural, the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to settle fair and equitable rent under chap. X, Part II, Bengal Tenancy Act, and had not in fact proceeded under that chapter, and that the accreted lands not having come up to the level of the high-lands, no rent was payable under the terms of the potta. In view of the aforesaid defence, and as in fact no notification under chap. X, Part II, had been issued, the plaintiff prayed for and obtained leave to amend the plaint by deleting the reference to Chap. In view of the aforesaid defence, and as in fact no notification under chap. X, Part II, had been issued, the plaintiff prayed for and obtained leave to amend the plaint by deleting the reference to Chap. X, part II, Bengal Tenancy Act, and pleading that rent had been settled by the Revenue Officer "under appropriate Regulations and laws." The plaint was amended accordingly, and the trial proceeded on the footing that the Revenue Officer had settled the rent under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 and S. 191, Bengal Tenancy Act. 4. The trial Court held, inter alia, that the necessity for assessment of Government revenue was the occasion for the settlement of fair and equitable rent, that the Revenue Officer proceeding under the rules laid down in the Bengal Survey and Settlement Manual had jurisdiction to settle fair and equitable rent under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822, that this settlement of fair and equitable rent superseded the terms of the potta under S. 191, Bengal Tenancy Act, which, according to it, was applicable to all tenures, and that it was clear on the evidence adduced that the accreted lands had come up to the level of the high land as it was in 1907, and, therefore, it could not be said that rent was not payable under the potta. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit for arrears of rent at Rs. 495 per year, only disallowing the claim for the year 1342 B. S. on the ground that as the suit was not governed by the Bengal Tenancy Act, the claim for this year was barred by limitation. The defendant company went up on appeal to the District Judge. The learned District Judge held, relying on the case in 29 C. W. N. 505 Dhirendra Chandra Rai and Others Vs. Nawab Khaja Habibullah and Others, AIR 1925 Cal 758 , that Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 and Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 only empowered the Revenue Officer to ascertain the assets for the purpose of assessing the Government revenue, and, therefore, only to record the existing rights, but not to settle fair and equitable rents which would be binding on the tenants. 7 [VII] of 1822 only empowered the Revenue Officer to ascertain the assets for the purpose of assessing the Government revenue, and, therefore, only to record the existing rights, but not to settle fair and equitable rents which would be binding on the tenants. The learned District Judge further held that S. 191, Bengal Tenancy Act, had no application, because the suit lands were accretions to land demised under the potta for erecting a jute mill or other factory, and were consequently non-agricultural lands, and because they were not wholly situate in a temporarily settled estate. On the last mentioned point the learned Judge relied on the case in 67 C. L. 3. 202 Srish Chandra Nandi Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd., AIR 1938 Cal 853 . Finally, the learned Judge held that rent had not been claimed under the potta, that the evidence as to the level of the lands was worthless, and that it had not been proved that the condition laid down in the potta had been fulfilled. In the result, the District Judge allowed the appeal, reversed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The present appeal is by the plaintiff from this decision of the lower appellate Court. Two questions have been canvassed before us, namely (1) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Revenue Officer had jurisdiction to settle fair and equitable rent which would be binding on the respondent, and (2) whether such settlement could supersede the contract between the parties. 5. As to Q. (1)- A discussion of this question necessarily involves the consideration of the old Regulations and Acts. It will be convenient to deal with them chronologically. The Bengal Land Revenue Assessment (Resumed Lands) Regulation 1819, (Bengal Regn. 2 [II] of 1819), is the first legislation with regard to churs and alluvion lands. 5. As to Q. (1)- A discussion of this question necessarily involves the consideration of the old Regulations and Acts. It will be convenient to deal with them chronologically. The Bengal Land Revenue Assessment (Resumed Lands) Regulation 1819, (Bengal Regn. 2 [II] of 1819), is the first legislation with regard to churs and alluvion lands. Section 3 of this Regulation enacts that all lands, which at the period of the decennial settlement, were not included within the limits of any pargana, mauza or other division of estates for which a settlement was concluded with the owners, not being lands for which a distinct settlement might have been made since then, nor lands held free of assessment under a valid and legal title, shall be considered liable to assessment in the same manner as other unsettled Mahals, and the revenue assessed on all such lands, whether exceeding one hundred bighas or otherwise, shall belong to the Crown. This principle is by cls. (2) and (3) of that section extended to churs and alluvion lands and to lands included within particular taluks in 24 Parganas and Jessore. The procedure to be followed in making the assessment is laid down in the following sections. The object of this Regulation is to secure the dues of the Government without infringement of the just rights of individuals. It is concerned with the rights of the Government vis a vis the owner or possessor of the estate, and not with the rights and obligations between such owner and his under-tenants. The next Regulation that has to be considered is the Regulation which has come to be known by the short title of the Bengal Land Revenue Settlement Regulation (7 [VII] of 1822). The next Regulation that has to be considered is the Regulation which has come to be known by the short title of the Bengal Land Revenue Settlement Regulation (7 [VII] of 1822). The full title of the Regulation and the extensive preamble indicate that the objects of this Regulation are: (1) to declare the principles of settlement of land revenue to be followed in Cuttack, Pataspur and its dependencies, (2) to declare the powers and duties of Collectors or other officers employed in making, revising or superintending such settlements, (3) in revising the existing settlements, to define, settle and record the rights and obligations of various classes and persons possessing an interest in the land or in the rent or produce thereof, so that all demands, claims and suits may be adjusted and determined according to facts found by officers, unless the same be formally altered as a result of a regular suit; (4) to vest the Revenue Authorities with judicial cognizance in certain cases of suits and claims relating to land, and to the rent and produce of land. 6. The various objects and purposes summarised above are elaborated in the sections that follow. Clauses (1) to (5) of S. 2 have since been repealed and may be omitted from consideration. Clause (6) of S. 2 lays down the general rule relative to zemindars holding on after expiration of their leases and extension of existing leases. Section 3 prescribes how and in what circumstances fresh settlement is to be made. Section 4 provides that the provisions for extending leases shall not debar the Revenue Officers from interfering to adjust the rights of the Sadar Malguzars and their under-tenants. Section 5 secures Malikana for the proprietors of estates formed or held khas. Section 6 reserves the right to revise settlement of estates, of which existing leases shall be extended under S. 2, during the continuance of such extended lease, if it shall transpire that there has been any material error or concealment of land belonging to any Mahal; and S. 7 provides for the granting of leases on revision of settlement in respect of such lands. Section 8 is concerned with letting of excess waste lands. Section 9 which is important lays down the scope of the investigation by Collectors in making or revising settlements. Section 8 is concerned with letting of excess waste lands. Section 9 which is important lays down the scope of the investigation by Collectors in making or revising settlements. It enjoins the duty on Collectors in making or revising settlement to unite with the adjustment of the assessment and investigation of the extent and produce of the lands, the object of ascertaining and recording the fullest possible information in regard to landed tenures, the rights, interests and privileges of the various classes of the agricultural community. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of cl. (1) of this section indicate the nature and kind of information that has to be recorded. Paragraph 7 of clause (1) declares that all decisions on the demands of the zemindars shall thereafter be regulated by the rates of rent and modes of payment avowed and ascertained at the settlement and recorded in the Collectors' proceedings until distinctly altered by mutual agreement or after full investigations in a regular suit, and that all cesses or collections not avowed and sanctioned, nor taken into account in fixing the Government jama, shall be held illegal and unauthorised. Clause (2) of this section authorises the Collectors to grant Pattas to zemindars and raiyats for the lands owned or occupied by them, specifying the amount to be paid by them and all conditions attaching to their tenure. Section 10 reserves power to the Provincial Government to determine which of several holders of differing interests having separate properties in the same land shall be admitted to engage for payment of the Government revenue, and lays down detailed rules applicable in different circumstances. Sections 11 to 13 may be passed over as not very material for our present purpose. Section 14 empowers Collectors making or revising settlements to declare the nature and extent of the interest of any person about which there may be any dispute. 7. Clause (3) of this section provides that the decision of the Collectors, unless altered or annulled by the Board of Revenue or by the Provincial Government, shall be maintained by the Courts, unless on investigation in a regular suit it shall appear that possession held under such a decision is wrongful. The other clauses of this section empower the Collector to take cognizance of and decide disputes as to possession. Likewise, Ss. The other clauses of this section empower the Collector to take cognizance of and decide disputes as to possession. Likewise, Ss. 15, 16 and 17 empower the Collectors making or revising settlements to receive, hear, try and determine different claims specified in those sections. Provision is made for the aggrieved party to institute a regular suit for contesting the decision of the Collector. Section 18 authorises the Collector to be the judge of the question of his jurisdiction, and S. 19 empowers him to summon witnesses and to require production of documents. Section 20 prescribes that the powers ordinarily vested in Collectors making or revising settlements under the foregoing sections may be curtailed, and that such powers may be vested in them even when they are not making or revising any settlement. Section 21 deals with processes and notices. The Collector's cutchery is by S. 22 to be deemed a civil Court and suits to contest the Collector's decisions are to be in the nature of appeals from summary awards. By cl. (3) of this section the Collectors are authorised to execute these awards. Section 24 gives ancillary powers to the Collectors in aid of the ordinary powers. Sections 26 to 29 deal with pleadings, place of trial, and appeals from Collector's decisions in suits the cognisance of which is vested in the Collectors to the Board of Revenue. Clause (6) of S. 29 gives a right of suit in civil Courts to the aggrieved party. Option is given by S. 30 to parties having claims cognisable by Collectors, but not wishing summary trial before the Collector to institute regular suits in civil Courts. Clause (2) of S. 31 provides that all Munsifs shall, in cases tried by them, be held and bound by the decisions passed and records prepared by the Collectors, unless the same shall have been rescinded or altered by the Board or by the Zilla or other similar or superior Court in a regular suit. The remaining sections may be left out of consideration as not being material for our present purpose. The remaining sections may be left out of consideration as not being material for our present purpose. On a plain reading of the full title, preamble and the sections of this Regulation, uninfluenced by any judicial interpretation thereof, it appears to us to be permissible to conclude that under this Regulation the duty of the Collector is not only to ascertain and record existing rights with a view to ascertain the assets for the purpose of fixing the revenue, but also to define and settle rents payable by under-tenants, and that, subject to a right of suit in the civil Court, the scheme of the Regulation is to make the decision of the Revenue Authorities final. 8. By the Bengal Land Revenue Settlement Regulation (Bengal Regn. 9 [IX] of 1825) the provisions of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 which were in their application limited to Cuttack and Pataspur are extended, as far as they may be applicable, to all lands (including jagirs, mukarraris and other tenures held free of assessment or at a quit rent under special grant) not included within the limits of estates for which a permanent settlement had been concluded in the manner prescribed by Regn. 8 [VIII] of 1793. Those provisions are likewise directed to be in force in estates which were then or may there-after be held in khas during the period for which they may be so managed and to Sunderbans and certain other specified places. (Section 2 of Regn. 9 [IX] of 1825). The extension of the provisions of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 to revenue-free lands of khas lands seems to indicate that the powers vested in Collectors were exercisable independently of the making or revising of settlement of such lands, for no question of assessment of revenue could arise in respect of these lands. In respect of these lands, therefore, the powers were to be exercised in settling the rights and liabilities of tenants and under-tenants regarding the extent and nature of their tenure, their possession thereof and the rents payable therefor, and other matters specified in the different sections of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. 9. The next regulation is the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation (Bengal Regn. 11 [XI] of 1825). 7 [VII] of 1822. 9. The next regulation is the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation (Bengal Regn. 11 [XI] of 1825). The purpose of this regulation, as stated in its full title, is to declare the rules to be observed in determining claims to lands gained by alluvion or by dereliction of a river or the sea. By cl. (1) of S. 4 land gained by gradual accession shall be considered an increment to the tenure of the person to whose land or estate it is thus annexed, whether such land or estate be held immediately from the Crown by a zemindar or other superior land-holder or as a subordinate tenure by any description of under-tenant whatever, and such increment shall not enable the person in possession to any right beyond that possessed by him in the estate or tenure to which such increment may be annexed and shall not in any case exempt him from the payment to the Crown of any assessment for the public revenue to which it may be liable under the provisions of Regn. 2 [II] of 1819 or of any other regulation in force, nor if annexed to a subordinate tenure held under a superior landlord, shall the under-tenant, whether a khudkasht raiyat, holding a maurasi istimrari tenure at fixed rate of rent per bigha or any other description of under-tenant liable by his engagements or by established usage, to an increase of rent for the land annexed to his tenure by alluvion, be considered exempt from the payment of any increase of rent to which he may be justly liable. 10. The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (Central Act 9 [IX] of 1847) deals with the assessment of Government revenue in respect of lands gained from the sea or from rivers by alluvion or dereliction. 11. The Bengal Alluvial Land Settlement Act, 1858 (central Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858) is of very great importance for our present purpose. Under S. 1 of this Act, when land added by alluvial accession to an estate paying revenue to Government becomes liable to assessment, the revenue assessed upon the alluvial land may, if agreed on by the revenue authorities and the proprietors, be added to the jama of the original estate and a new engagement may be executed for the aggregate amount. If there be no such agreement, or if the revenue authorities are of opinion that a settlement cannot properly be made for the same term as the existing settlement of the original estate, the alluvial land shall be assessed and settled as a separate estate with a separate jama and shall be regarded and treated as in all respects separate from and independent of the original estate. (It may here be mentioned parenthetically that the alluvial accretions with which we are concerned in this appeal have in fact been formed into a separate Touzi No. 3226 of the Collectorate of 24 parganas.) Such separate assessment, however, shall not affect the rights of any under-tenant in any alluvial land (under the provisions of cl. (1), S. 4 of Regn. 11 [XI] of 1825). Paragraphs 2 and 3 of S. 2 of this Act are as follows: It shall be the duty of all officers making settlements of such land, whether the land be settled separately or incorporated with the original estate, to ascertain and record all such rights, according to the rules prescribed in Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822; and to determine whether any and what additional rent shall be payable in respect of the alluvial land by the person or persons entitled to any under-tenure in the original estate. The provisions of the said Regulation, so far as the same may be applicable, are hereby declared to extend to all settlements made under this Act. It is quite clear, as far as language can make it, that the Revenue Officers are enjoined not merely to ascertain and record the rights of under-tenants, but also to determine the additional rent, if any, which is to be payable by the under-tenants. We have seen that Regn. It is quite clear, as far as language can make it, that the Revenue Officers are enjoined not merely to ascertain and record the rights of under-tenants, but also to determine the additional rent, if any, which is to be payable by the under-tenants. We have seen that Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 is by its full title a Regulation inter alia for "defining, settling and recording the rights and obligations of various classes and persons possessing an interest in the land or in the rent or produce thereof," and its preamble declares amongst other things, that the efforts of the Revenue Officers should also be directed to the object of "ascertaining, settling and recording the rights, interests, privileges and properties of all persons and classes........," and that the proceedings held and the records prepared by the Revenue Officers should be such that all demands, claims, and suits may be adjudged and determined according to the facts stated therein, until the same shall have been formally altered, or it shall be shown, by the result of a full investigation in a regular suit, that the proceeding or record of the Collector was erroneous or incomplete. As already stated, on a plain reading of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822, uninfluenced by any judicial interpretation, it is easily possible to hold that settlement of the rights of under-tenants is within the purview of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. If, however, there be any doubt in the matter under that Regulation, the language of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 appears to us to be quite clear and explicit. The portion of S. 2 of that Act quoted above clearly enjoins that it shall be the duty of the Revenue Officer to ascertain and record all such rights and to determine whether any and what additional rent shall be payable in respect of alluvial land by the person or persons entitled to any under-tenure in the original estate, and for this purpose the procedure laid down in Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 is directed to be adopted as far as it is applicable. In our opinion the provisions of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 read with Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 in terms clearly contemplate the settling and determination of the rent payable by the under-tenants, and not merely the recording of existing rights, as contended by Mr. A. N. Bose. 12. Mr. In our opinion the provisions of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 read with Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 in terms clearly contemplate the settling and determination of the rent payable by the under-tenants, and not merely the recording of existing rights, as contended by Mr. A. N. Bose. 12. Mr. Bose has drawn our attention to certain rules set forth in the Bengal Survey and Settlement Manual, edition of 1917, which were in force at the time of the settlement of the accreted lands in the present case. He concedes that these rules have no statutory force, but contends that the Revenue Board, rightly or wrongly, framed rules for the guidance of the Revenue Officers, and presumably the Revenue Officer followed those roles in the present case and that if that be so, it is clear that under those rules the Revenue Officer did not have power and could not have intended to determine the rents payable by the under-tenant. He refers us to Rr. 67, 334 and 550 which latter rule with certain modifications corresponds to R. 660 of the 1935 Manual and is referred to in the judgments of the Courts below. Rule 67 purported to limit the power of the Revenue Officer making a settlement under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 by providing that except by agreement with the parties, subject to S. 29, Ben. Ten. Act, in the case of raiyati lands, the officer had no power to settle rents or to record rents higher than those paid before. It is quite clear, however, that this did not purport to lay down any restriction on his powers while proceeding under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. The present proceeding being one under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 read with Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822, the Revenue Officer could not have acted under R. 67. Rule 334, the last sentence whereof referred to a fair and equitable rent being assessed for the purpose of the calculation of assets, was in chap. X of the Manual of 1917. The rules set forth in chap. X of the 1917 Manual including R. 334 were to be followed in connection with settlement of fair rents when a settlement of land revenue was being or was about to be made under part II of chap. X, Bengal Tenancy Act, and had no application to proceedings under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. The rules set forth in chap. X of the 1917 Manual including R. 334 were to be followed in connection with settlement of fair rents when a settlement of land revenue was being or was about to be made under part II of chap. X, Bengal Tenancy Act, and had no application to proceedings under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. Rule 550 of the 1917 Manual relied on by Mr. Bose does not, in our opinion, establish that the officer proceeding under that rule had no power to determine the rent of under-tenants. The marginal note of the rule was "Rights of under-tenants in accretions." The first sentence of the rule laid down that in case of alluvial accretion to a dependent tenure, the dependent tenure-holder was entitled, on payment of a fair rent to his superior landlord, to hold the accretion for the term of his engagement. Who would settle and determine the fair rent? The answer was given in the following sentences of that rule. By the third sentence of the rule, the Diara Officer was enjoined to work under Chap. X, Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is clear, therefore, that he was empowered to settle fair and equitable rent. The fourth sentence of the rule directed that, if there was no notification under chap. X, Bengal Tenancy Act, the Diara Officer would ascertain and record the rights of under-tenants under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 read with S. 2 of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. Reliance is placed by Mr. Bose on the fact that in this sentence the words used were "ascertain and record," and not "settle" or "determine." But it is clear that under this rule the Diara Officer was to work under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 read with S. 2 of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. Indeed, under R. 547 (a) it was clearly laid down that the authority of the Diara Officers in respect of Diara proceedings was derived solely from Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. That Act expressly enjoins the officer not merely to ascertain and record, but also to determine, the rent. The officer in this case, therefore, clearly knew what he had to do. The notification Ex. That Act expressly enjoins the officer not merely to ascertain and record, but also to determine, the rent. The officer in this case, therefore, clearly knew what he had to do. The notification Ex. 2, to which I have already referred clearly stated that the rents of all under-tenants were under S. 2 of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 or under S. 104, Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, liable to determination and would be determined. The officer did fix the rent. In these circumstances, it is impossible to hold that he did not determine the rent or did not intend to do so, merely because in the final report, Ex. E, he stated that the assessment had been made under the provisions of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. It is significant that in the Khatian, Ex. 4, it is stated that rent had been "settled" under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. In our opinion, there is nothing in the rules, on which reliance has been placed, to indicate that in this case the officer did not purport to determine the rent. The last two sentences in R. 550 do not appear to us to militate against the view just expressed. 13. Mr. Bose has relied on certain decisions of this Court, and it is necessary to examine them now. In 16 Cal. 586 Akshaya Kumar Dutt v. Shama Churn ('89) 16 Cal 586, 17 C. W. N. 865 Ishur Chandra Sarkar v. Troylakhya Nath ('13) 19 I. C. 675 : 17 C. W. N. 865, 23 C. W. N. 587 Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Mohendra Nath ('19) 6 A. I. R. 1919 Cal 321 : 52 I. C. 90 : 23 C. W. N. 587 and 27 C. W. N. 121 Ashutosh Chackerbarty v. Dwarika Nath ('23) 10 A. I. R. 1923 Cal 207 : 70 I. C. 119: 27 C. W. N. 121, it was held that a Settlement Officer under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 did not settle rent but recorded the rates of rent existing in the village. In 40 C. W. N. 341 Sarba Ranjan Basak v. Secy. of State ('36) 40 C. W. N. 341, it was held, however, that under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 did not settle rent but recorded the rates of rent existing in the village. In 40 C. W. N. 341 Sarba Ranjan Basak v. Secy. of State ('36) 40 C. W. N. 341, it was held, however, that under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 the Settlement Officer had power to settle rent of Khas Mahal lands which the under-tenant was liable to pay, and that in default of payment certificate proceedings could be properly taken. It is, however, unfortunate that the earlier cases were not referred to or discussed in the judgment in this case, and this circumstance certainly diminishes its authority. Had the matter been res Integra, we should have been prepared to hold on the plain language of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 that the settlement of rent was within the jurisdiction of the officer, but whatever our view of the language used in the preamble and the different sections of Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 may be, we cannot overlook that in a long series of cases this Court has interpreted those provisions as only empowering the officer to record existing rights, and not to settle rent so as to be binding on the under-tenants, and we cannot presume to dissent therefrom at this stage. These cases, however, were not concerned with and did not consider the effect of the provisions of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858, and cannot, in our opinion, be decisive in the present appeal. 14. The case in 29 C. W. N. 505 Dhirendra Chandra Rai and Others Vs. Nawab Khaja Habibullah and Others, AIR 1925 Cal 758 certainly supports the contention of Mr. A. N. Bose. We are, however, inspite of our very great respect for the learned Judges who decided that case, unable to accept the correctness of their decision. The language of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 appears to us to be quite clear and explicit. It empowers the officer and indeed enjoins him not only to ascertain and record all rights of under-tenants, but also to determine whether any and what additional rent shall be payable by the under-tenant. There is provision for notification, like Ex. 2 in this case, to be issued to the under-tenant to the effect that rent would be determined, and the tenant has, as the respondent in the present case had, full opportunity to represent his case. Under Regn. There is provision for notification, like Ex. 2 in this case, to be issued to the under-tenant to the effect that rent would be determined, and the tenant has, as the respondent in the present case had, full opportunity to represent his case. Under Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 which is adopted by this Act the party aggrieved has a right of appeal to the Board and then a right of suit. In these circumstances, it is impossible to hold that the determination of rent will not be binding on the under-tenant. It has been already shown that R. 550, while it talked of ascertaining and recording the rights, expressly directed the officer to proceed under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 read with Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. Rule 547 (e) expressly said that the authority of the Diara Officers was derived solely from Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858. If the determination of rent under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 is to have no binding effect, why was that last sentence added to cl. (2) in S. 2, and why did it require the officer to determine the right ? If the determination of rent is not to be binding on under-tenants, why is there provision for issuing notification to under-tenants, and why is a right of appeal to the Board or a right of suit given to the aggrieved under-tenant ? With great respect to B. B. Ghose J. who delivered the leading judgment, with which Walmsley J. agreed, we are unable to follow the reasoning adopted in that case or to accept the correctness of that decision. In our judgment, S. 2 of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 means what it says, namely, that it empowers the officer to determine whether any and what additional rent shall be payable by the under-tenant, and having regard to the provisions for issue of notice, appeal to the Board and the right of suit in civil Court, such determination must be regarded as binding until and unless it is altered by the Board or the civil Court as the case may be. Further, the principles enunciated in the recent case in 69 I. A. 51 : 46 C. W. N. 802 Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria v. Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 P. C. 8 : I. L. R. (1942) 2 Cal. Further, the principles enunciated in the recent case in 69 I. A. 51 : 46 C. W. N. 802 Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria v. Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 P. C. 8 : I. L. R. (1942) 2 Cal. 1 : I. L. R. (1942) Kar. P. C. 23 : 69 I. A. 51 : 199 I. C. 545 : 46 C. W. N. 802 (P.C.), with reference to proceedings under chap. X, Part II, Bengal Tenancy Act, appear to us to apply to proceedings under Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858 read with Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822. The case in 43 C. L. J. 152 Radha Nath Dutt v. Chandra Kumar Dutt ('26) 13 A. I. R. 1926 Cal. 523 : 91 I. C. 718 : 43 C. L. J. 152 is clearly not in point. That was a suit for declaration of title and for possession. The defendant in that case was not a party to the diara proceedings and no notice had been served on him. In any case that decision only adopts the decision of B.B. Ghose J. in 29 C.W.N. 505 Dhirendra Chandra Rai and Others Vs. Nawab Khaja Habibullah and Others, AIR 1925 Cal 758 , and does not carry the matter any further. There are certain observations in 68 I. C. 719 Ambica Charan Sen v. Girish Chandra Sen ('22) 68 I. C. 719 (Cal.), but the point was not really decided in that case. On a consideration of the language used in Regn. 7 [VII] of 1822 and S. 2 of Act 31 [XXXI] of 1858, and of the rules laid down in the 1917 Manual, which, however, have no statutory force, and of the judicial decisions bearing on the point, we have come to the conclusion that in this case the Revenue Officer was entitled to determine the rent, and the first question canvassed before us should accordingly be answered in the affirmative, as contended by Dr. Pal. 15. As to Q. (2) : On this question, as on the first, there has been a divergence of opinion between the Judges in the Courts below. Pal. 15. As to Q. (2) : On this question, as on the first, there has been a divergence of opinion between the Judges in the Courts below. The learned District Judge has reversed the Trial Court and answered this question in the negative on two grounds, namely, (i) that S. 191, Bengal Tenancy Act, does not apply to non-agricultural lands, and (ii) that if it did, the present suit land is not situate in a tenure wholly situate in a temporarily settled estate. 16. Section 191 is to be found in chap. XVII which is headed "Supplemental," and is one of the sections grouped under the sub-heading "Provisions as to temporarily settled districts." We have seen that part II of Chap. X, Bengal Tenancy Act, deals with settlement of rents etc., in cases where a settlement of land revenue is being or is about to be made. There is no dispute that in proceedings under chap. X, Part II, the Settlement Officer may settle fair and equitable rent inspite of any contract between the parties by applying S. 191. The question of settlement of rents may also arise independently of any question of settlement of land revenue, as envisaged in part III of chap.X. It cannot be doubted that S.191 may be equally applicable in proceedings under part III of chap. X. Thus it is clear that S. 191 is not, in its application, confined to proceedings under part II of chap, X, Bengal Tenancy Act. Then we find that questions of settlement of rent may arise under S. 52. That section uses the word "tenant" and not "tenure holder" or "raiyat," and may be applicable to non-agricultural tenants. In S. 191 also the word "tenant" has been used, and we do not see why it should be limited to tenure holders or raiyats. In the area comprised in a tenure or holding, there may be non-agricultural tenants, and there is no reason why S. 191 should not apply to them as well as to agricultural tenants within the said area. There is, therefore, a good deal to be said for the view of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge that S. 191 is not, in its application, limited to an agricultural tenancy only, and no other cogent reason has been advanced for so limiting it. Indeed Mr. There is, therefore, a good deal to be said for the view of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge that S. 191 is not, in its application, limited to an agricultural tenancy only, and no other cogent reason has been advanced for so limiting it. Indeed Mr. A. N. Bose did not much rely on this first reason assigned by the learned District Judge in support of his decision. 17. The second reason adopted by the learned District Judge is founded on the case in ILR (1938) 2 Cal. 41 Srish Chandra Nandi Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd., AIR 1938 Cal 853 . In that case the tenancy was of one whole tract comprising asli and alluvion lands for one rent in a lump. In the case before us the parcels of land are quite separate, namely high lands measuring about 96 bighas and chur lands measuring about 192 bighas, and there was a provision about future accretions. What is more important is that selami and rent were different in respect of the different classes of land. In these circumstances, it is possible to construe the potta, although physically one document, to be in reality 3 pottas in respect of three parcels of lands with three separate jamas. The future accretions fall wholly within a temporarily settled touzi, and, in this view, this case is distinguishable from the case in 67 C.L.J. 202 Srish Chandra Nandi Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd., AIR 1938 Cal 853 . The khatian, Ex. 4, shows that the potta was before the revenue officer when he determined the rent. There is nothing to show that he did not take the provisions thereof into consideration. If after taking the provisions of the potta into consideration and not disregarding it off hand the revenue officer determined the rent payable by the tenant according to his view of what should be the fair and equitable rent, no exception can be taken to such determination. Even if he disregarded the potta his decision would be liable to be set aside in a suit in the civil Court, but unless set aside the rent fixed by him must be regarded as the fair rent payable by the tenant. (See 49 C. W. N. 395 Province of Bengal v. Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. ('45) 32 A. I. R. 1945 Cal. 341 : 49 C. W. N. 395.) 18. (See 49 C. W. N. 395 Province of Bengal v. Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. ('45) 32 A. I. R. 1945 Cal. 341 : 49 C. W. N. 395.) 18. If the tenant's contention be that the potta could not be superseded or touched at all, it was for the tenant to rely on it before the revenue officer. Notification Ex. 2 was duly served on the respondents and they had ample opportunity to raise the point. If the respondents were aggrieved by the determination of rent by the revenue officer, they had the right to appeal before the Board. They had also the right to raise the question by a regular suit. This they did not do. At one stage of the hearing we thought that it might be possible to stay these proceedings on the respondents now filing a suit to get the decision of the revenue officer set aside. Even taking the institution of the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, as the starting point of limitation, more than six years have elapsed and any suit contemplated by Regulation 7 [VII] of 1822 will now be barred. In these circumstances it seems to us that the principle of finality deduced by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee from the provision of chap, X, Part II, Ben. Ten. Act, in 69 I. A. 51 Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria v. Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 P. C. 8 : I. L. R. (1942) 2 Cal. 1 : I. L. R. (1942) Kar. P. C. 23 : 69 I. A. 51 : 199 I. C. 545 : 46 C. W. N. 802 (P.C.), is equally applicable to this case. It seems to us that the provisions of Regulation 7 [VII] of 1822 regarding appeal to the Board and the right of suit are in part-materia with those contained in Part II of chap. x, and the consequences of not availing oneself of the remedies specified in both enactments must be the same. It may be mentioned here that the case in 67 C. L. J. 202 Srish Chandra Nandi Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. x, and the consequences of not availing oneself of the remedies specified in both enactments must be the same. It may be mentioned here that the case in 67 C. L. J. 202 Srish Chandra Nandi Vs. Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd., AIR 1938 Cal 853 was cited and relied on by the appellant in 69 I. A. 51 Kumar Chandra Singh Dudhoria v. Midnapur Zemindary Co., Ltd. ('42) 29 A. I. R. 1942 P. C. 8 : I. L. R. (1942) 2 Cal. 1 : I. L. R. (1942) Kar. P. C. 23 : 69 I. A. 51 : 199 I. C. 545 : 46 C. W. N. 802 (P.C.), and, "therefore, the former case must now be read in the light of the decision in the last-mentioned case. In our judgment, therefore, the second question should also be decided in favour of the appellant. The result, therefore, is that the decision of the lower appellate Court must be set aside and the decree of the trial Court should be restored. The appellants will get the costs of this appeal and of that before the lower appellate Court.