1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 26th July 1912, allowing an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover certain lands which he had formerly been in possession of as Ghatwal, but from which it is alleged that he had been dismissed by an order of the District Magistrate. The case in both the lower Courts proceeded solely on the question whether the plaintiff had or had not been dismissed by the District Magistrate and whether he was entitled to ask the Court to review the order of dismissal made by the District Magistrate. That was the only point raised in the two lower Courts and that is the only point we have got to decide here. This Ghatwali is in Bankura. The nature of the Ghatwali in that district has been laid down in the Privy Council judgment in the case of Nilmoni Singh Deo v. Bakranath Singh 9 C. 187 (P.C.) : 9 I.A. 104 : 5 Shome L.R. 68 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 335. The nature of the interest is that, although it is heritable, the ordinary rules of inheritance according to the Hindu and the Muhammadan Laws are not applicable to the tenure, but it is held upon the condition of the approval of the heir by the Government. That question, in my opinion, is not open to doubt after the decision of the Privy Council. In so far as the decision in Jogendra Nath Singh v. Kali Charan Roy 9 C.W.N. 663. conflicts with the decision in Nilmoni Singh Deo v. Bakranath Singh 9 C. 187 (P.C.) : 9 I.A. 104 : 5 Shome L.R. 68 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 335. already referred to, of course, the decision of the Privy Council is binding on us. But we are not concerned with that point here. Here the plaintiff was dismissed by the District Magistrate, the reason being that he had made default in payment of the quitrent that was due from him to the Sudder Ghatwal and the District Magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, thought fit to dismiss the plaintiff and to direct the Sudder Ghatwal to appoint some one else in his place. It is said that the Civil Court is capable of reviewing that order, but in my opinion it cannot review such an order. If in the opinion of the Police authorities, it is essential that money should not remain due from the Ghatwals to the Sudder Ghatwal or that, in the interests of the public, Ghatwals should remain free from debt and perform their duties with less likelihood of taking gratification from other parties, it is obviously a matter for the executive authorities to consider. It has been decided by this Court in the case of Debee Narain Singh v. Sree Kishen Sew 1 W.R. 321. that 'the Civil Courts cannot interfere to reinstate a Ghatwal who has been dismissed by the Police authorities in the land which he formerly held as Ghatwal. The right to possess the land depends on the tenure of the office.' It seems to me quite clear that the Court could not reinstate the man as the Ghatwal, because the Court cannot force upon the executive authorities a person to discharge the duties who in the opinion of the executive authorities is not suited or is not fit to perform those duties. In my opinion the Court cannot reinstate a person in the land who has been properly dismissed from the office. I think that the learned District Judge came to a correct conclusion when he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The present appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.
2. I agree.