JUDGMENT V.K. Mehrotra, J. -This is a plaintiffs appeal who succeeded before the trial court but failed before the lower appellate court. 2. There is a public ferry maintained by the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh on river Yamuna on Etawah-Gwalior road called the Rajghat ferry, Etawah. The toll of this ferry was let out by public auction for a period of three .years beginning from October 1, 1956 to the plaintiff on annual rent of Rupees 47,666/10/8. A document of lease (Ext. 1) was duly executed under which the plaintiff secured exclusive right of collecting the toll at the rates specified in Schedule II of the lease. The plaintiff continued to collect toll at those rates until the rates were varied with effect from October 1, 1958 through a notification dated April 30, 1958. This variation, according to the plaintiff, caused diminution in the collection made by him and occasioned a loss of Rs. 11882/06 between October 1, 1958 and the date of the suit filed in February, 1959. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in substance, in the suit was that the State of Uttar Pradesh had no right to vary the rates of the toll during the subsistence of the period of lease and that by doing so it had committed a breach of contract resulting in damages which the plaintiff was entitled to receive. In the alternative, it was pleaded by the plaintiff that, in any case, he was entitled to an abatement of rent which had not been allowed to it. He sought a sum of Rs. 10,000/-only as damages for the loss occasioned to him on the aforesaid variation. The plaintiffs grievance also was that the defendant failed to give allowance to him for the loss suffered by him on account of the change in the rates in spite of repeated approach. Hence, the necessity for a suit for declaration about the invalidity of the action of the defendant in altering the rates through the impugned notification dated April 30, 1958 and for recovery of the amount of Rs. 10,000/'-as damages. 4. The defendant State of Uttar Pradesh raised several pleas. The substance of the defence taken was that the defendant was entitled under the provisions of law to make variations in the rates of toll and that there was nothing in the lease deed restraining, it from doing so. 10,000/'-as damages. 4. The defendant State of Uttar Pradesh raised several pleas. The substance of the defence taken was that the defendant was entitled under the provisions of law to make variations in the rates of toll and that there was nothing in the lease deed restraining, it from doing so. Further, the suit for computation of the amount claimed as damages was barred under Section 34 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878 (for brevity, the 'Act) and the quantum of the compensation or of the amount of rent which could be abated in these circumstances, it was said, was left to be determined by the Commissioner of the Division or such other officer as the State of Uttar Pradesh appointed in this behalf. 5. After framing necessary issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Judge took the view that it was open to the State Government to alter the rates of toll that the plaintiff could collect through the notification dated April 30, 1958. He further held under issue No. 4 that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into this matter was not barred by Section 34 of the Act as pleaded by the defendant. He also observed, under Issue Nos. 3 and 6, that the plaintiff claimed damages for the period beginning from October 1, 1358 to February 8, 1959. I, therefore, accept the plaintiffs version on this point and I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- only which he claims by this suit, though the damages amount to Rs. 11882.06 as shown in the register Ex. 5. ".................." I further hold that the rates in respect of certain things stipulated in the agreement between the parties were also enhanced by the notification in question but that it does not affect the plaintiffs claim for damages in any way because he has made full allowance for the said enhancement." In the result, the trial Judge observed as under: "Plaintiffs suit for the relief of declaration given in clause A of the para of reliefs is dismissed. His suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- is decreed against the defendant with costs". 6. The State of Uttar Pradesh took the matter in appeal which was decided by the learned District Judge on May 12, 1973 by the judgment under appeal. His suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- is decreed against the defendant with costs". 6. The State of Uttar Pradesh took the matter in appeal which was decided by the learned District Judge on May 12, 1973 by the judgment under appeal. The learned Judge, after elaborately dealing with the matter, affirmed the conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge that the State of Uttar Pradesh was competent to vary the rates of toll from time to time under Section 15 of the Act and that, therefore, it was entitled to issue the impugned notification dated April 30, 1958. He concurred with the view taken by the trial court in this respect. 7. The learned District Judge was, however, of the opinion that the civil court had no jurisdiction to go into the -question of compensation for damages or for determination of the amount of rent liable to be abated in view of Section 34 of the Act. He observed that the decree of the trial court could, therefore, not be upheld. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit in its entirety. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up to this court in this second appeal. 8. The view taken by the courts below that it was open to the State of Uttar Pradesh to alter the rates of toll during the period of subsistence of the deed of lease in favour of the plaintiff is in conformity with law. Section 15 of the Act clearly provides for it. That provision is in the following terms: "15. Tolls - Tolls, according to such rates as are, from time to time, fixed by the State Government, shall be levied on all persons, animals, vehicles and other things, crossing any river by a public ferry and not employed or transmitted on the public service: Provided that the State Government may, from time to time declare that any persons, animals, vehicles or other things shall be exempt from payment of such tolls. Where the tolls of a ferry have been let under Section 8, any such declaration if made after the date of the lease, -shall entitle the lessee to such abatement of the rent payable in respect of the tolls as may be fixed by the Commissioner of the Division or such other officer as the State Government may from time to time appoint in this behalf by -name or in virtue of his office." 9. The toll of any public ferry which is let by public auction under Section 8 of the Act is subject to the right of the State Government from time to time to alter the rates of toll or to exempt any person from payment of such tolls. The proviso contained in Section 15 of the Act recognises this right of the State Government in express terms. The agreement which the State Government enters into with any person, letting out to him the right of collecting toll from the public ferry, is subject to the right of the State Government under Section 15 of the Act and the provisions of that Section will be deemed to be part of any ' ease executed by the State Government in that regard. 10. Where the toll of a ferry has been let out under Section 8 of the Act and an alteration has been brought about in the rates of toll subsequent to any lease being granted, the lessee is entitled to abatement of rent payable in respect of the toll under Section 15 of the Act itself. The amount of such abatement, as is clear from the perusal of the provision, is to be fixed by the Commissioner of the Division or such other officer as may be appointed by the State Government. The Scheme of the Act, therefore, clearly is that whenever there is an alteration in the rates of toll by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Act, the lessee, who suffers on account of such alteration, is entitled as of right to an abatement of rent payable in respect of the toll let out to him under S. 8. The State Govt, is, therefore, under an obligation to abate' the rent payable in respect of the toll to an extent determined by the Commissioner of the Division or such other officer as has been appointed in this behalf by it. In a situation like this, it is obvious that there is no breach of contract on the part of the State Government which may entitle the lessee to claim any damages from it. 11. The view of the learned District Judge that the amount of compensation for the loss suffered by a lessee on account of alterations made by the State Government under Section 15 of the Act, has to be determined by the Commissioner of the Division or an officer appointed in this behalf by the State Government, is not strictly correct. The amount of compensation which has been made determinable by the authorities under the Act and in respect whereof the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred under Section 34 of the Act, is the compensation which is payable under the Act alone, namely, under Section 5 of the Act, on account of a private ferry being taken possession of under Section 4 thereof. The only amount which the Act contemplates to be determined in the case of alteration in the rates of toll is the amount of rent to an abatement whereof a lessee is entitled under Section 15 of the Act. The act does not contemplate payment of any amount by way of compensation to a lessee, other than an amount of abatement of rent, where there is an alteration in the rates of toll by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 15 of the Act. 12. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court having expressly been barred under Section 34 of the Act for ascertainment of the amount of abatement of rent allowable, consequent upon an alteration in the rates of toll under Section 15 of the Act, the decree passed by the trial Judge was rightly set aside by the District Judge. 13. A perusal of the provisions of the Act would indicate that no specific period of limitation has been provided therein to seek redress in the matter of abatement of rent from the appropriate authorities in case the State Government fails on its own, to allow that abatement. 13. A perusal of the provisions of the Act would indicate that no specific period of limitation has been provided therein to seek redress in the matter of abatement of rent from the appropriate authorities in case the State Government fails on its own, to allow that abatement. Of course, he should seek redress from the appropriate authority within a reasonable period. The redress cannot be sought in a civil suit. In the instant case, the plaintiff appears to have been perusing his remedy for securing abatement in the amount of rent before a Civil Court under a mistaken impression that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant relief. The Civil Court, as seen above, had at one stage granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is clear that the plaintiff did not approach the appropriate authority under Section 15 of the Act so far on account of a mistaken impression about the forum. The amount claimed by him was found to be correct by the trial Judge. There is no doubt that if the plaintiff approaches the appropriate authority for the redress of his grievance even now, the said authority would give him the needed re- lief. On these considerations, however, the decree of the lower appellate Court cannot be interfered with. 14. In the result, the appeal fails but, in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs.