1. This is a second appeal by a plaintiff. The plaintiff Mehdi Raza is the successor-in-interest of some person who in the past was given a village with release from the obligation of paying land revenue. It is apparently the case of the plaintiff that his predecessor-in-interest got the grant in lieu of service and, therefore, the grant comes under the Pensions Act. It is then urged that under Section 300, Government of India Act, the Local Government had no power to remit the rents of the tenants in this village. Very| little has been said about what evidence, if any, there was to show that the plaintiff was a person who had some benefits to which the Pensions Act applied. The preamble of the Pensions Act, 23 of 1871, is to the effect that it is expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to pensions and grants by Government of money or land revenue. In so far as the grant was of a village it does not come either within money or land revenue. The next point is whether release from the obligation to pay land revenue is a grant of land revenue under the Pensions Act. Section 8 is to the effect that all pensions or grants by Government of money or land revenue shall be paid by the Collector or the Deputy Commissioner or other authorised officer. In a case like the present one as no one pays the land revenue of this village to Government there is no question of the Collector paying it to the plaintiff. Section 9 in that Act states that nothing in Sections 4 and 8 shall affect the right of a grantee of land revenue, whose claim to such grant is admitted by Government, to recover such revenue from the persons liable to pay the same under any law for the time being in force for the recovery of the rent of land. Section 4 is a section barring the jurisdiction of the civil Courts and it is clear from Section 9 that a grantee of land revenue under the section was a person who was entitled to recover from others the revenue which those others would otherwise have had to pay to the Government. This is found in certain villages in the province where there are proprietors who have to pay revenue assessed on them not to the Government but to a certain individual who is the grantee. In the present village apparently I understand that there are no proprietors who are liable to pay land revenue to the plaintiff as the plaintiff himself is the proprietor. As far as I can see, therefore, on such facts as have been given to me the position of the plaintiff is not the position of a person to whom the Pensions Act applies.
2. As regards Section 300, Government of India Act, which, according to the plaintiff, prevents the Local Government from remitting rents, I cannot find that it applies. The relevant part of Section 300, Sub-section (1) is to the effect that the executive authority of a province shall not be exercised, save on an order of the Governor-General or Governor, as the case may be, in the exercise of his individual judgment, so as to derogate from any grant or confirmation of title of or to land, or of or to any right or privilege in respect of land or land revenue. I do not consider here whether there was any order of the Governor in the exercise of his individual judgment for that does not arise. As regards the grant of the village to the ancestor of the plaintiff, it is sufficient to say that no one has attempted to take the village from him and he has got such title as he had formerly. As regards his freedom to pay land revenue, nobody has interfered with that either, because he is no more liable to pay land revenue now than he was when the grant was made. The grievance of the plaintiff apparently is that his income is not as great after the remission of the rent of tenants as it was before. His position is no worse than that of owners of villages who have become owners by some transfer from some other owner instead of by a grant from the Government. His position appears to be better because the other proprietors had to pay land revenue though rents were remitted and he does not have to pay it at all. The case of the plaintiff would appear to be that any legislation which would have the effect of reducing his income from the village is invalid against him. I see no force in this contention. I therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs. Permission to file a Letters Patent appeal is refused.