JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - This is an application in revision of an order of the learned District Judge of Lower Chindwin by which he dismissed an appeal from an order of the Township Court of Yinmabin in Civil Execution No. 2 of 1933. In that case the learned Township Judge, having at the instance of the decree-holder attached certain State land in execution of a money-decree, cancelled the attachment on the ground that as the occupier of State lands had no transferable right of use or occupancy therein his right was not salable property within the meaning of Section 60, Civil P.C.: Maung Po Min v. Maung Po (1897) 2 U.B.R. 258. The learned District Judge took the same view as the learned Township Judge. The ground of revision is that the learned District Judge has overlooked the material fact that the ruling relied on, has been overruled in Sonilal Sheoshankar v. Delawar 1918 U.B.R. 46 and secondly, that the Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction invested in them by refusing to execute the decree. As regards the latter ground, it cannot be said that the lower Courts have refused to execute the decree. What they have refused to do is to execute it by attachment of property which they have held not to be salable property. It is difficult to see how by so doing they have failed to exercise the jurisdiction with which they have been vested. In fact, in deciding that the property was not salable, they have actually been exercising their jurisdiction. As regards the first point, in my opinion, the learned District Judge was quite correct in pointing out that the later decision referred to did not apply inasmuch as it merely decided that Clause 2, Sub-section 2, Section 53 of the Upper Burma Land and Revenue Regulation does not bar the jurisdiction of civil Courts over claims to the ownership or possession of State land except in respect of such matters as the Local Government or a revenue officer is empowered by or under the Regulation to dispose of. It cannot be implied from this decision that occupiers of State lands have an heritable or transferable right of use or occupancy therein. Disputes may arise between private individuals in regard to possession of land in which the question of the existence of such a right does not arise. If I may say so, with great respect the decision in Maung Po Min v. Maung Po (1897) 2 U.B.R. 258 appears to me to be a correct decision.

2. The learned advocate for the applicant has referred me to certain decisions of the Indian High Courts by which it was held that restrictions against the right of transfer made, for instance by the terms of a lease would not prevent the right of use or occupancy being attached; but clearly such decision can have no application in the present case where, by regulation of the State it has been definitely laid down that an occupier of State lands can have no transferable right of use or occupancy therein. Direction 82 of the Upper Burma Land Revenue Manual, 1911, which purports to lay down that

there is nothing either in the regulation or in the rules which prohibit transfer by an occupier of such interest as he has in his holding.

appears to be incorrect, There is no justification for reading the words "against the Government" into Clause (a) of Section 25 of the Regulation after the words, "occupancy therein." It may be that in practice Government has not ordinarily interfered with transfers made by occupiers of State lands; but this does not mean that in law such a right to make transfers exists. In my opinion no ground for revision of the order of the learned District Judge exists, and this application is dismissed.