Bidyadhar Misra and Others vs Radhashyam Panda and Others

Chatterji, J.—These four applications are directed against the appellate decision of the Collector of Cuttack passed in four rent appeals which arose out of four rent suits tried by the Deputy Collector with six other suits. In all these suits the plaintiff was the same but the defendants were different.

In the four suits with which we are now concerned certain transferees of the disputed holdings from the recorded tenants intervened on the allegation that their purchases were recognized by the plaintiff. They prayed that they might be added as defendants. The Deputy Collector allowed their prayer, and accepting their plea of payment in full with regard to one suit and in part with regard to the other three dismissed the first mentioned suit altogether and decreed the other three suits in part against them and the original defendants jointly. The suits being all valued at less than Rs. 100 the plaintiff appealed to the Collector who reversed the decision, holding that the alleged purchases were not recognized by the plaintiff. He therefore allowed the appeals and decreed the suits against the original defendants only. Hence, these applications in revision by the purchasers.

The point taken on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. S.P. Mahapatra is that the Deputy Collector having decided "a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between the parties to the suit," the appeals lay not to the Collector but to the District Judge under the provisions of Section 204, Sub-sections (2) and (3), Orissa Tenancy Act, and therefore the decision of the Collector in the appeals was without jurisdiction. Sub-section (2) of Section 204 runs thus:

In suits where the subject-matter of the claim or dispute does not exceed one hundred rupees in value, and the judgment does not decide a question whether rent is payable for land or not, or a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between parties to the suit, the judgment of the Collector shall be final:

Provided that, if the suit be tried and decided by a Deputy Collector exercising the powers of a Collector, an appeal shall lie from the judgment of the Deputy Collector to the Collector.

and Sub-section (3) is as follows:

In suits other than those referred to in Sub-section (2) an appeal from the judgment of the Collector or Deputy Collector shall lie to the District Judge, unless the amount or value in dispute exceeds five thousand rupees, in which case the appeal shall lie to the High Court:

Provided that a second appeal shall lie to the High Court under Order 42 in Schedule 1, Civil P.C., 1908, from any appellate decree passed by the District Judge under this section.

The question'' turns on whether the Deputy Collector who tried the suits decided "a question relating to title to land or to some interest in land as between parties to the suit." If he did so decide, unquestionably the appeals to the Collector were not competent. Now what the Deputy Collector actually decided was that the purchasers were the tenants, exclusively of one holding and jointly with the original defendants in respect of the other three holdings.

In other words, as between the original defendants and the transferee defendants it was decided that with regard to one of the holdings the transferee defendants and not the original defendants were the tenants while in respect of the other three holdings they were both tenants. No doubt the original defendants did not raise any contest but their tenancy right was in question, being asserted by the plaintiff and disputed by the transferee defendants. The Deputy Collector''s decision, in my opinion, amounted to a decision of a question relating to title to some interest in land as between parties to the suits.

Mr. Mahapatra has referred to the case in Bipin Chandra Majumdar Vs. Raj Kumar Sinha and Others, in which it was held, with reference to the provisions of Section 153, Ben. Ten. Act, of which the wording is somewhat similar to that of Section 204(2), Orissa Tenancy Act, that a decision of the question as to whether the title to the holding lay in the transferees or the original tenants was a decision of a question relating to title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. This case undoubtedly supports the contention of Mr. Mahapatra.

I am therefore of opinion that the appeals to the Collector were not competent and his decision was without jurisdiction. A preliminary objection was raised by Mr. C.M. Acharya on behalf of the opposite party that, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Puri Sethi v. Gangadhar Patro AIR 1940 Pat. 249 and Parmananda v. Shyam Sahu 5 Cut. L.T. 64 the appellate decision of a Collector is not revisable by this Court. But in those very cases it was pointed out that the Collector

is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court if he decides any question mentioned in Sub-clause (2) when his decision becomes appealable to the District Judge or High Court.

The situation thus indicated has arisen in the present cases. The preliminary objection must be overruled.

I would accordingly allow these applications and set aside the decision of the Collector. The memoranda of appeal presented before him will be returned to the opposite party for presentation in proper Court subject, of course, to any objection as to limitation that may be raised. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.