PARBATI KUMARI Vs. DOMAN MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are from a Single Judge of this Court (Noor, J.) affirming the appellate decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh by which he reversed the decree of the Munsif and dismissed the suits on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff as mukarraridar sued in each case to eject the defendants from certain gairmazura khas land after declaration of the plaintiff's title. The defendants alleged that they were protected under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act as they had brought the land under cultivation as "korkar" and further contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The suits related to four plots of land Nos. 46, 20, 41 and 43. As to plot Nos. 64 and 43, it has been found as a fact by the Munsif that the conversion into korkar was complete as to portions thereof and the defendants having acquired an occupancy right therein under Section 67 of the Act the suits must be dismissed as to these portions, but he gave a decree as to the rest.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suits entirely holding as a fact that the conversion into korkar of the remaining land though not completed had been begun, and that in all the suits the defendants were either raiyats or residents of the village. Section 64(3) upon which his decision was based runs as follows: Where the consent of the landlord is required by this section for the conversion of land into korkar, such consent shall be deemed to have been given if, within two years from the date on which the cultivator commenced such conversion, the landlord has not made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for the ejectment of the cultivator (and no cultivator who is a tenant or a resident of a village, shall be ejected from land of that village which he has commenced to convert into korkar otherwise than upon such an application). In my opinion the effect of this section is that within two years of the commencement of the conversion the landlord may apply to the Deputy Commissioner to eject the cultivator and may in such application prove that the work was begun without his consent.

(3.) If he fails to take this step then his, consent will be deemed to have been given and the concluding sentence added by amendment has the effect of giving to the Deputy Commissioner exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of ejecting a tenant or a resident of the village from land which he has begun to convert into korkar. Circumstances may occur in which a tenant or resident begins conversion and then abandons the attempt but the question of whether any such attempt has or has not been abandoned is a matter of fact. In the present cases no such abandonment has been found, a commencement of conversion has taken place and in such case the application for ejectment can only be made in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner.