JUDGMENT
1. Under Section 189(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act, jurisdiction is conferred upon the Collector to hear and determine, as a Revenue Court, the suits and applications specified in parts A and B of the Schedule to the Act, and there is a corresponding provision depriving the Civil Courts of jurisdiction in such matters. As regards Section 46, part B of the Schedule confers upon the Collector jurisdiction to dispose, as Revenue Court, of applications for settlement of rent of land for the purpose of Section 46 under the proviso to that section, and makes orders passed under that section appealable to the Court of the District Collector, if there is no dispute about the rate of rent under the proviso to Section 46(1), there is nothing in Section 189 or in the Schedule to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or confer jurisdiction on the Collector as a Revenue Court; and even if there is such a dispute, jurisdiction is only conferred with respect to it.
2. Under Section 46(3) the Collector may execute an instrument conferring a permanent right of occupancy upon the tenant, and the execution is to have the same effect as execution by the land-holder. The right to apply for a permanent right of occupancy is only conferred by the section on “a non-occupancy ryot”, and the power conferred upon the Collector to execute an instrument conferring it is subject to the same limitation. If the Collector purporting to act under the section, executes an instrument conferring occupancy right on a person who is not “a non-occupancy ryot”, he is acting ultra vires; and, as the matter is one which he is not authorised to dispose of as a Revenue Court under Section 189 read with the Schedule to the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted. The appeal must be allowed, the decrees reversed and the suit remanded for disposal according to law. Costs hitherto will abide.
