KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. HIRO MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is the proprietor of the Ramgarh Raj, an estate in the District of Hazaribagh. In his suit, which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, he sued for the recovery of possession of the mauza Palamau in pargana Rampur and for mesne profits. In the record of rights the mauza is shown as the non-resumable khunt-katti tenure of defendants-respondents or their ancestors under the Ramgarh Raj. The case of the appellant is that the settlement entry is incorrect, and that the mauza was held in istimrari mokararri by Chetnath Mahton and Kani Mahton, ancestors of the defendants-respondents, and lapsed to the Ramgarh Raj on the death of the survivor of these two persons on 2l November, 1930. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plea of the defendant-respondents that they are permanent tenure-holders under a non-resumable tenancy and dismissed the suit.

(2.) Pour points have been raised before us in appeal: (1) the jurisdiction of the civil Courts to entertain the suit; (2) whether the entry in the record of rights is conclusive under the provisions of Section 132, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act; (3) if the record is not conclusive, whether on the evidence it is proved that the tenure is a non-resumable one and the appellant is entitled to resume it; (4) whether khunt-katti rights can extend to land which is still unreclaimed jungle. Section 258, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, provides that: Save as expressly provided in this Act, 110 suit shall be entertained in any Court to vary, modify or set aside, either directly or indirectly, any decision, order or decree of any Deputy Commissioner or Revenue- officer in any suit, application or proceeding... under Chap, 13, 14, 15, 16 or 18 except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction and every such decision, order or decree shall have the force and effect of a decree of a civil Court in a suit between the parties and, subject to the provisions of this Act relating to appeal, shall be final.

(3.) A perusal of the plaint in this case will show that the correctness of the entry in the record of rights is challenged on the ground that the proceedings under Chap. 15, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, relating to "record of rights and obligations of raiyats having khunt-katti rights, village-headmen and other classes of tenants" were without jurisdiction. Hence, the civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain this suit. This disposes of the first point. The application of Section 132, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, to the record of rights in this case is challenged on the ground that the proceedings of the revenue authorities under chap. 15 of the Act were without jurisdiction. The contention is two-fold (1) that the notification under Section 127, from which the revenue authorities derive their authority to proceed under Chap. 15 did not relate to mauza Palamau and (2) that the Tenancy Act does not recognize any such class of tenants as khunt-katti tenure-holders and therefore the revenue authorities acted without jurisdiction in recording such a tenancy. The notification under Section 127, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, says that the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal is pleased to direct that a record be prepared of the rights and obligations of raiyats having khunt-katti rights or of any other class of tenants in the areas included within the external boundaries of thanas Ramgarh, Mandu, Gumian, Kasmar and Dumurhi in the District of Hazaribagh and that a settlement be made of fair rents to be paid by such raiyats. (By some mistake the words in italics have been omitted in the paper-book).