The Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a site is a Kudiyiruppu or not, even though the Amendment Act has given the Authorised Officer exclusive jurisdiction to decide such matters, in cases where the landlord does not concede that the site is a Kudiyiruppu and has filed a suit in ejectment in the Civil Court.

1. These petitions for review of the judgment, dt. 23rd September 1977, reported in Ganesan v. Madurai Achari 91 L.W. 6=1977 T.L.N.J. 437 have arisen because the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act,) had not been noticed at that time. The Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (Conferment of Ownership) Amendment Act 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 27th March, 1976. By virtue of S. 1(2) of the said Amendment Act, the same shall be deemed to have come into force on the 24th of December 1971.

2. Unfortunately, the said amending provision was not brought to my notice by anyone when the second appeals were heard and the judgment delivered. The Court copy of the Act placed before me had also not been corrected by pasting the necessary amendment slip. In my judgment I have observed that the Act (referring to the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act) nowhere states that the question as to whether a site is a Kudiyiruppu or not is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer. In view of the Amendment Act that observation is incorrect. S. 4 of the Amendment Act introduced in the Parent Act two new Sections, namely Ss. 3-A and 3-B. S. 3-B says that the Authorised Officer is to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or agricultural labourer as well as whether any site is a Kudiyiruppu or not.

3. Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned counsel appearing for the tenant contends that under the above circumstances my judgment should be varied.

4. I am of the view that in spite of the above amendment, the judgment should stand.

5. It is to be noted that the amendment is only in the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act, and not in the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act. One is not concerned now with a case where the tenant had gone to the Authorised Officer and a decision taken in favour of the tenant under the Kudiyiruppu Ownership Act. In the present suits, admittedly no proceedings have been taken before the Authorised Officer. As I have indicated in the judgment, under such circumstances a landlord who does not concede that the site is a Kudiyiruppu has necessarily to come to the Civil Court for evicting the tenant. Then the tenant may raise the question that the site is a Kudiyiruppu inasmuch as he is an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer as defined under the Acts. Under such situations I am unable to hold, in spite of the amendments, that the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the tenant is an agriculturist or an agricultural labourer or whether the site is a Kudiyiruppu or not. It must be remembered that under the above circumstances, the plaint must be deemed to have been presented to the proper forum. As per the averments in the plaint (in as much as the landlord does not concede that the site is a Kudiyiruppu) the Civil Court would undoubtedly have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the tenant raises the question that the site is a Kudiyiruppu and if it is to be held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such a question, I wonder what is to happen to the suit itself. It is needless to stress that the suit had been properly entertained and that there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction on the part of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit. Having so entertained the suit, it has to give it a proper disposal. I have already indicated in my judgment that even on the Civil Court finding that it is a Kudiyiruppu, the suit in ejectment is not to be dismissed but the Court has to grant a decree which should be made subject to the provisions of the Kudiyiruppu Protection Act.

6. After properly entertaining a suit in ejectment, the Civil Court cannot possibly dismiss the suit even without going into the question whether the site is a Kudiyiruppu or not. I have already indicated that there is no provision for