Kharag Narayan vs Secy. of State and Another

James, J.—The plaintiff in this suit was described in the Record-of-Rights as a tenure-holder and valuation of his tenure was made in due course u/s 41(2), Cess Act (9 of 1880). At the recent revaluation he claimed that he should be assessed as a cultivating raiyat, on the ground that he had ejected the tenants who occupied holdings under his tenure; but the Collector made the assessment u/s 41(2). The plaintiff appealed to the Commissioner u/s 102 of the Act; but his appeal was dismissed. He then instituted the suit with which we are here concerned for a declaration that the tenure in question constituted his raiyati jote and not a tenure within the meaning of the Cess Act; and that it was not liable to assessment as a tenure. The Munsif of Begasarai held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the question of valuation under the Cess Act was exclusively a matter for the revenue Courts; and his decision was affirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr.

On behalf of the appellant it is argued that although Section 102 of the Cess Act may provide that the decision of the Commissioner on appeal will be final on a question of valuation, yet a person who is aggrieved by the status which has been accorded to him by the Collector is entitled to institute a suit for a declaration that the decision of the Collector was wrong. u/s 26, Cess Act the Collector determines whether any person is to be classed as a cultivating raiyat or tenure-holder for purposes of assessment and levy of cesses; and if the Collector directs that any person be classed as a tenure-holder then for these purposes he is a tenure-holder. If he is aggrieved by the Collector''s having made the valuation otherwise than in accordance with his own return, he may appeal to the Commissioner and the Commissioner''s decision will be final, subject to revision by the Board of Revenue.

A regular appeal is thus provided in the revenue Courts, who alone can decide whether the Collector has properly used his discretion in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon him by Chap. 2 of the Cess Act. The civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the variation or annulment of the valuation made by the Collector.

The learned advocate for the appellant attempts to draw a distinction between the present suit and a suit for variation of the Collector''s order in the matter of valuation. He says that he is praying for a declaration that his status is that of a cultivating raiyat and not that of a tenure-holder; and that on that account his suit should be regarded as maintainable. But he does expressly ask as a consequential relief that the orders of assessment of cess by the revenue officers may be set aside; and this question of status which the appellant seeks to raise in the civil Court has no meaning outside the Cess Act.

That is to say, he only desires that it should be declared that he is a cultivating raiyat in order that the decision of the Collector that he is a tenure-holder for the purposes of the Act, a decision which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities, should be set aside.

The suit was rightly dismissed by the Courts below; and the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Das, J.

I agree.