Collector's jurisdiction under tenancy law extends to disputed voluntary surrender and duress, excluding civil court review.

Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 empowers the Collector to determine whether possession is wrongful or unauthorised, and that enquiry includes deciding if a tenant voluntarily surrendered possession or was dispossessed under duress. The summary nature of the proceeding does not confine the Collector to admitted facts; he may decide the factual questions that found jurisdiction under the Act. Because those matters fall within the statutory enquiry, Section 47 bars the Civil Court from reopening them. The Collector's decision on voluntary surrender and duress was therefore within jurisdiction, and the Civil Court could not go behind it.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on an application under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, the Collector had jurisdiction to decide the disputed question whether the tenant had voluntarily surrendered possession or was dispossessed under duress, and whether Section 47 barred the Civil Court from examining that question.

Analysis: Section 43 confers power on the Collector to eject a person found in wrongful or unauthorised possession where the possession falls within the contingencies stated in the section. The expression "under the provisions of this Act" shows that the enquiry includes whether the person is entitled to remain in possession under the Act, and the remedy is intended to be quick and effective in furtherance of the protective scheme of the legislation. The fact that the enquiry is summary does not limit it to simple or admitted facts; it remains a judicial determination of the facts that invest the Collector with jurisdiction. Where resistance to eviction is founded on an alleged voluntary surrender, the Collector can examine whether there was in fact a surrender and whether it was voluntary. Since such matters fall within the scope of Section 43, Section 47 bars the Civil Court from re-examining them.

Conclusion: The Collector had jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of voluntary surrender and duress, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go behind that decision.

---