PRABHU MISSIR Vs. DOME MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a decree dated 27 May 1948 of the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Shahabad, which reversed the decree dated 5 May 1942 of the Munsif, Second Court, Arrah, in an action for a declaration that the orders of the Rent Reduction Officer were without jurisdiction.

(2.) The suit giving rise to the present appeal relates to two occupancy holdings bearing khata Nos. 482 and 488 in village Kutchri within milki lakheraj tenure of the plain, tiff. Both the holdings were recorded as occupancy raiyati jote of the defendant. Khata No. 482 having an area of 4.26 acre at an annual rent of Rs. 19- 6-6 Was recorded under khewat No. 1/2 of which the plaintiff was the recorded tenure-holder. Khata No. 488 having ail area of 3.50 acre at an annual rent of Rs. 14-8-6 was recorded under khewat No. 1/6 of which Mt. Vidya Kuer widow of Bashisht Missir was the recorded tenure-holder. Mt. Vidya Kuer died in the year 1348 and her interest in the tenure has devolved upon the plaintiff as reversionary heir of her husband. The record of rights was published in the month of February 1912. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the father of the present defendant in the Court of Munsif, Arrah, which was registered as Suit No. 260 of 1913 for a declaration that the entry in the record of rights in respect of khata No. 482 was incorrect. He claimed that the land was his zirat and had been in his khas cultivation and that the defendant had no concern whatever with that holding. The suit was decreed on compromise on 14 April 1914. By the compromise the holding was recognised to be occupancy raiyati holding of the defendant. The recorded jama was, however, increased from Rs. 19-6-6 besides cess to Rs. 84- 15-0 inclusive of cess. It was also agreed that the arrear rent for the period 1318 to 1820 amounting to Rs. 104-18-0 will be paid in two instalments as specified in the petition of compromise. There was no suit in respect of khata No. 488. But by the compromise petition it was also agreed that the defendant who was in possession of the holding would continue to hold it as occupancy raiyat. In this case also the jama was increased from 14-8-6 besides cess to Rs. 25-8-6 inclusive of cess.

(3.) In the year 1937, Section 112A was enacted by the Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1937. Clause (a), Sub-section 1 of Section 112A provides that the Collector may cancel all enhancement of rents of occupancy holdings made under Section 29 or under Clause (a), (b) or (d) of Section 30 between 1st January 1911 and 81 December 1936. The defendant made an application to the Collector for cancellation of the aforesaid increase in rents of the two holdings alleging that the increase in rent was really an enhancement under Section 29, Bihar Tenancy Act. The Rent Reduction Officer who was appointed by the Provincial Government to discharge the functions of the Collector under Section 112A accepting the contention of the defendant treated the in-creased rents as an enhancement under Section 29, Bihar Tenancy Act, and by his order dated 4th April 1939 cancelled the enhancements. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the order of the Rent Reduction Officer which is said to be without jurisdiction and therefore inoperative. The lower Court decreed the suit.