Rampini and Wilkins, JJ.
1. This is an appeal against an order of the Special Judge of Cuttack, affirming an order by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Puri, passed in a settlement case under Chapter X, Act VIII of 1885.
2. All the proceedings in the case, as well as the Judge's order now under appeal, are of date prior to the passing of Act III of 1898, B.C. So this appeal has admittedly to be disposed of under the provisions of the former Chapter X.
3. The dispute is as to the existence of a right of way, and the parties are two neighbouring tenants. The Assistant Settlement Officer held the right of way over the defendant's land to exist, and the Special Judge has affirmed his order.
4. In appeal it is urged (1) that the Settlement Officer was not justified in recording the existence of the alleged right of way, as it is not one of the conditions or incidents of a tenancy he had jurisdiction to record under Section 102, Clause (h): (2) that under the ruling of this Court in Pandit Sirdar v. Meajan Mirdha (1893) I.L.R., 21 Cal., 378, the Settlement Officer had no right to decide a dispute between tenant and tenant.
5. We think these contentions must prevail. We consider that the existence of a right of way cannot be regarded, strictly speaking, as a condition or incident of a tenancy. A raiyat may have a right of way over the land of another raiyat, but not qua tenant. Secondly, the case of Pandit Sirdar seems to us clearly to lay down the principle that under the old chapter X, now repealed, a Settlement Officer has not jurisdiction to decide civil disputes arising between tenant and tenant. The dispute in this case is undeniably a dispute of a civil nature, and must under the old chapter X be left to the decision of the Civil Courts.
6. We decree this appeal, set aside the orders of the lower Courts and direct that all entries regarding the existence of the right of way in question be expunged from the record of rights. This order will carry costs--two gold mohurs.