https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293100 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. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 1916 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:10:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293100 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Mar 1916 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293100