Birsa Uraon vs Mahadeo Uraon and Others

Das, J.—The appellant who was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance had brought the suit for a declaration of this title to, and recovery of possession of, two plots of land, 1051 and 1120, comprised in holding No. 78 of village Dublis. The plaintiff alleged that the land in question was recorded in the name of Chunda Uraon, and Chunda Uraon having died without any heir, the landlord took khas possession of the land by virtue of an order of the Deputy Commissioner u/s 73, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. Thereafter, the landlord settled the land with the plaintiff. Defendant 1, who was the contesting defendant, alleged that Chunda had died leaving behind him his brother Thurwa and his mother Mt. Karmi. Thurwa was the heir of Chunda Uraon, and the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner u/s 73, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no abandonment of the holding by the recorded tenant or his heir.

The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is if the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner u/s 73, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, was without jurisdiction. u/s 258, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the order of the Deputy Commissioner undor Section 73 of the Act has the force and effect of a decree of a civil Court in a suit between the parties, and is final subject to the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act relating to appeal, except where the order is bad for want of jurisdiction. It appears that When a notice was issued u/s 73(2), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, Thurwa appeared before the Deputy Commissioner, and claimed to be the heir of Chunda.

This claim was not, however, allowed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, who held that Thurwa was not the brother of Chunda. If the aforesaid order or decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner u/s 73(2), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, is a good order (that is, an order with jurisdiction), then it is clear that it has the force and effect of a decree of a civil Court, and is final between the parties. In that case, the respondents cannot be allowed to go behind the decision or order of the learned Deputy Commissioner. This seems to me to be the clear effect of Section 258, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

The Courts below have, however, found that the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner u/s 73(2), Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no abandonment of the holding by the recorded tenant or his heir and in passing the order complained against, the Revenue Officer acted without jurisdiction. It has been contended before me on behalf of the appellant that the Courts below were wrong in their view that the order or decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction and that it was open to the learned Deputy Commissioner to decide whether Thurwa was or was not the heir of Chunda Uraon, and even if the decision of the learned Deputy Commissioner was wrong, it is binding on the parties. In my judgment, the Courts below were right in their view that the learned Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide questions of title or inheritance, when there was no abandonment of the holding. To allow the Deputy Commissioner to do so would be to convert the rent Court into a Court for determining questions of title, in circumstances where such questions do not arise. Sub-section (1) of Section 73 says that if a raiyat voluntarily abandons the land held or cultivated by him, without notice to the landlord, and ceases either himself or through any other person to cultivate the land and to pay his rent as it falls due, the landlord may, at any time after the expiration of the agricultural year in which the raiyat so abandons and ceases to cultivate, enter on the holding and let it to another tenant or take it into cultivation himself. The abandonment of the holding as contemplated by Sub-section (1) is, therefore, the foundation of the jurisdiction for the summary decision by the Revenue Officer. It has been contended before me that this Sub-section applies not only in the case of a voluntary abandonment by the recorded, tenant, but also in a case where the recorded tenant has died without any heir and there is nobody either to cultivate the land or to pay rent to the landlord. It is doubtful if the Sub-section, in its terms, applies to such a case. Assuming, however, that it applies in a case where the recorded tenant has died without any heir, I do not see how it can apply in a case where there is an heir who is cultivating and willing to pay rent, and I can find nothing in Sub-section (2) of Section 73 which would entitle the Deputy Commissioner to decide a question of disputed1 title or inheritance in order to assume jurisdiction where he had no such jurisdiction. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 73, before a landlord enters on the land, he shall send a notice to the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner shall cause a notice to be published. If an objection is preferred to the Deputy Commissioner within one month of the date of publication of the notice, the Deputy Commissioner shall make a summary enquiry and shall decide whether the landlord is entitled under Sub-section (1) to enter on the holding. There is nothing in this Sub-section which empowers the learned Deputy Commissioner to decide a disputed question of title or inheritance, and give a summary decision in favour of the landlord when the foundation of his jurisdiction, namely, abandonment of the holding is absent.

I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Deputy Commissioner acted in excess of jurisdiction when he found that Thurwa Uraon was not the heir of Chunda Uraon, and held that the landlord was entitled to enter the holding under Sub-section (1) of Section 73.

In this view of the matter the civil Court was competent to decide the question if Thurwa Uraon was the brother and heir of Chunda Uraon. The Courts below have concurrently found that Thurwa was the brother and heir of Chunda, and that finding cannot be challenged in second appeal. The result, therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.