1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This appeal, by special leave, arises out of Money Suit (No. 49 of 1959) brought by the plaintiff-appellant in the Court of Sadar Munsif, Faridpur, against the respondents for the recovery of Rs. 356 as the price of barga produce or, in the alternative, for compensation for the use and occupation of the disputed land which the appellant claimed to have purchased under the Revenue Sale Law, free from all encumbrances.
2. The aforesaid land was originally held in tenancy rights by Messrs Ruksmini Agricultural Industries Ltd., under Maharaja Prabindra Nath Thakur whose rent-receiving interest was acquired by the Government in the year 1951, under the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (hereinafter described as the Act). It was alleged that the rent due from the tenant Messrs Ruksmini Agricultural Industries Ltd., for the years 1951 to 1954 fell into arrears, as a consequence of which the holding was put to auction and purchased by the appellant in whose favour the sale was confirmed on the 25th of June 1955. After purchase, the appellant had allowed the respondent, who were in occupation, to become share-croppers in the land in question.
3. The respondents totally denied the plaintiff's title which was based on the revenue sale and set up an independent title in themselves. The trial Court and the appellate Court upheld the appellant's title to the-land on the view that under the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law (Act XI of 1859 and Act VII of 1868) which applied to the case he had acquired a good title to the land by auction purchase, free from all encumbrances. It was further held that although no barga settlement with the respondents was proved; yet as they had held occupation of the land without any right, they were liable to pay the amount of compensation which was decreed by the trial Court for the total amount in claim, i.e., Rs. 356 but which was reduced by the first appellate Court to Rs. 200 only. The respondents challenged the decree in a revision petition before the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge who held that the appellant had not acquired a valid title to the land under the revenue sale as the holding could not have been put to auction either under Act XI of 1859 or Act VII of 1868 for recovery of the arrears of rent that had fallen due, in respect of the holding, although it came to be held directly under the Government after it had acquired the rent-receiving interest of Maharaja Prabindra Nath Thakur. The learned Single Judge has also held that the recovery of the arrears of rent should have been made under section 139 of the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act of 1950.
4. At the leave stage it was pointed out .By the learned counsel for the appellant that section 139 ibid which is contained in Chapter V of the 1950 Act, was not attracted until such time as the provisions of that Chapter were notified and extended to a particular area and that they had not been so extended to the District of Faridpur in which the land in dispute was situated. Leave was granted to consider whether the provisions of the Revenue Sale Law applied to a case of sale for arrears of the rent due to the Government. The term "Arrears of revenue" is defined in the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859, as "the whole or a portion of a kist or instalment of any month of the era according to which the settlement and lost-bandi of any mahal have been regulated be unpaid on the first of the following month of such era, the sum, so remaining , unpaid shall be considered an arrear of revenue". It is also defined in the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1868 (Act VIX of 1868)_ as "including every sum annually payable to the Government by the proprietor of any estate or tenure in respect of the takavi, or of any money advanced' by Government to proprietors of land for making or repairing embankments, :reservoirs or water-courses, or other improvements on the land held by them". "Rent" is defined, both in the Bengal Tenancy Act and the East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, as meaning "whatever is lawfully payable or deliverable in money or kind by a tenant to his landlord on account of the use or occupation of the land held by the tenant". It is obvious that rent and revenue, are not synonymous even where each is recoverable by the Government. Nor is the one changeable into the other. It was 'conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant in the High Court that the holding was wrongly put to sale under the Land Revenue Sale Law since it had not been sold for arrears of revenue. It was, however, argued that the appellant had acquir--ed' right -and. Title in the land by his purchase as the sale had not been set aside under sections 22 or 23 of the Public Demands Recovery Act (Bengal Act III of 1913). It was rightly pointed out by the High Court that the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act did not apply to the sale in question as according to the sale certificate, Exh. I, the land had been put to auction under the provisions of Act VII of 1868.
5. We agree with the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the sale of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant under the Revenue Sale Law was unwarranted and without jurisdiction, having been made for recovery of arrears of rent and not for arrears of revenue. When action is taken under a special statute, it must fulfil the conditions of that statute to gain validity. As the appellant was not a valid purchaser of the disputed land, the sale in his favour being unlawful, his suit for compensation in respect of that land was rightly dismissed. We dismiss this appeal but as no one has appeared for the opposite-party, we make no order as to costs.