Budhanath Prida and Others vs Radhabinode Naik and Others

Das, J.—The plaintiffs are the landlords and the suits are for recovery of khas possession of certain raiyati lands. Defendant 7 was recorded as a tenant in respect of these lands and one Achutananda, represented in these litigations by defendants 1 to 6, was recorded as an under-raiyat. It appears that defendant 7 sold his raiyati interest to Achutananda and the plaintiffs contend that in the events which have happened they are entitled to khas possession of the disputed lands. Achutananda tried to get the consent of the landlord to the transfer. Having failed he adopted the procedure laid down in Section 31, Orissa Tenancy Act, and applied to the Collector for the registration of the transfer in his favour. The Collector considered the matter and refused to register the transfer. Thereupon Achutananda appealed to the Commissioner and the Commissioner affirmed the order of the Collector.

It is contended before us that the order of the Collector was without jurisdiction and that we should therefore hold that the transfer in favour of Achutananda was binding upon the landlord. Section 31, Orissa Tenancy Act gives an exclusive jurisdiction to the revenue Courts to consider whether the landlord had good and sufficient reason to refuse his consent to the transfer. The explanation to para 3 lays down the circumstances to which the Collector "shall have regard" in considering the question; and para. 6 provides that the applicant has a right to carry the matter up to the Commissioner and that "the order of the Commissioner on appeal shall be final." It has been contended before us that the order of the Commissioner proceeded on an erroneous assumption of facts and that, therefore, we should regard his final order as being made without jurisdiction. I cannot assent to this proposition. The section gives an exclusive jurisdiction in the matter to the revenue Courts and unless we are satisfied that the revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, we have no power to enter upon the question at all. The revenue Courts were the only Courts that could deal with the matter. They did in fact deal with the matter. In assuming jurisdiction to deal with the matter they were acting strictly within the statute and not outside it. It may possibly be that in deciding the point in the way in which they have done, they have made mistakes; but it is impossible to hold that because the revenue Courts may possibly have made mistakes in this matter, the civil Court can enter upon the question and corrects the decision of the revenue Courts. It may be pointed out that the two jurisdictions, namely, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts and the jurisdiction of the revenue Courts, are mutually exclusive and that the revenue Courts are in no sense under the supervision of the High Court. It seems to me that it is quite impossible to give effect to the argument of the learned vakil.

It was nest contended that although the revenue Courts may have failed to give him relief, the civil Court independently of Section 31, has power to go into the question and to hold that the landlord did not have good and sufficient cause to refuse his consent to the transfer, and for this proposition a decision of this Court in Giridhari Naik v. kashi Tindi [1917] 2 P. L.J. 476 was cited. All that was laid down in that decision was that

it is fallacious to say that occupancy rights are not transferable in Orissa without the consent of the landlord. They are transferable without the landlord''s consent unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Collector that the landlord has good reason for his objection,

I entirely fail to see how this decision has bearing on the question which is before us.

I would dismiss these appeals with costs.

Ross, J.

I agree.