Pasturage land is not ryoti land, so no occupancy right arises and Civil Court jurisdiction is upheld.

Land held solely for pasturage, and not for agriculture, does not make the holder a ryot under the Estates Land Act and does not confer occupancy right, because the ordinary meaning of agriculture does not include grazing and the statute showed no contrary intention. The land was also found to be saline grazing land, not ordinarily cultivable, so it answered the statutory description of old waste and did not constitute ryoti land. As rent under the Act means payment for agricultural use, pasturage dues were not rent; the dispute therefore remained cognizable by the Civil Court, whose jurisdiction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether land held only for pasturing purposes made the tenant a ryot or entitled him to occupancy right under the Estates Land Act; (ii) whether the suit land was old waste or otherwise non-ryoti land so that the Civil Court had jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether land held only for pasturing purposes made the tenant a ryot or entitled him to occupancy right under the Estates Land Act.

Analysis: The statutory definition of a ryot required holding for the purpose of agriculture and of ryoti land. The land was found on evidence to have been let only for pasture and not for agriculture. The Court held that the ordinary meaning of agriculture did not include pasturing, and nothing in the Estates Land Act showed an intention to enlarge the term so as to include pasture. On that footing, a tenant holding land only for pasturage did not become a ryot and could not claim occupancy right.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the defendant.

Issue (ii): whether the suit land was old waste or otherwise non-ryoti land so that the Civil Court had jurisdiction.

Analysis: Independently of the footing that the land was private land, the facts found showed that it was saline grazing land and not ordinarily cultivable. The statutory definition of old waste applied, and the land therefore did not answer the description of ryoti land. The Court further held that rent under the Act meant payment for use of land for agriculture, and pasturage dues were not rent; accordingly, the suit was not excluded from Civil Court cognizance.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff and the Civil Court's jurisdiction was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The defendant had no occupancy right in the land and the suit was maintainable in the Civil Court, so the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Land held solely for pasturage, and not for agriculture, does not make the holder a ryot; land that is not ordinarily cultivable and answers the statutory description of old waste is not ryoti land, and such a dispute remains cognizable by the Civil Court.

---