Karnataka High Court
Sri.Rasoolsab S/O Janglisab Hosamani vs Smt.Leelavati W/O Basaveshwar Konnur on 1 June, 2023
-1-
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100225 OF 2019 (DEC/PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RASOOLSAB S/O. JANGLISAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 89 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591123,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(A) TO 1(C)
GIRIJA A 1(A) SHRI. MEHABUBSAB
BYAHATTI S/O. RASOOLSAB HOSAMANI
Digitally signed by
GIRIJA A BYAHATTI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
AND BUSINESS R/O. PEERANAGUDI 591130,
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA-
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2023.07.03
13:01:48 +0530
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
1(B) SMT. DIWANBI W/O. KHADARSAB MAKANDAR,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O : BHAGYA NAGAR, NEAR BUS STAND,
RAMDURG 591123, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
1(C) SMT. RAZIYA W/O.
MOHAMMEDRAFIQ CHIKKUMBI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O. HIREKUMBI-591110,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. FAKRUSAB S/O. DIWANSAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591123,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 2(A) TO (H)
2(A) SRI. MUBUBI W/O. FAKRUSAB HOSAMANI,AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: PEERANGUDI-591130,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI.
2(B) SMT. SHAJANABI W/O. MEBOOBSAB ATTAR,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: GALAGALI 587117,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2(C) SMT. AYESHA W/O. RUSATUM ALAS,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: HANGANDI-587315,
TQ: BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2(D) SHRI. DIVANSAB
S/O. LATE FAKRUSAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591130,
POST: NARASAPUR, TQ: RAMDURGA,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2(E) SMT. LALANABI W/O. HABIBULLA ATTAR,
AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: DEVARAJ NAGAR, TERADAL-587315,
TQ: BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
-3-
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
2(F) SHRI. HUSAIN S/O FAKRUSAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI 591130, POST: NARASAPUR,
TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2(G) SMT. RAMIJA W/O. RAJESAB HORATTI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: DARGAGALLI, AT: HOSUR-587314,
TQ: BANAHATTI DIST: BAGALKOT.
2(H) SMT. SAHEERA W/O NOORAHAMAD ANNIGERI,
AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK,
R/O: BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, AT: NAVALAGUND,
TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD.
3. SRI. JANGLISAB S/O. DASTAGIRSAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591123,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI. DIWANSAB S/O. BANDESAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591123,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SRI.MEHBOOBSAB S/O. MUSASAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591123,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. SRI.IMAMSAB S/O. MAULASAB HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: PEERANAGUDI-591123,
TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK R KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
A1(A-C), A2(A-H) AND A3 TO A6)
-4-
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
AND:
1. SMT.LEELAVATI W/O. BASAVESHWAR KONNUR,
AGED ABOUT: 74 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: JUNIPETH ITI GALLI,
AT: RAMDURG-591123, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SMT.PADMAWATI W/O. MAHESH KONNUR,
AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
C/O: LABOUR COURT, BELAGAVI-590001.
3. SRI.RAMESH S/O. BASAVESHWAR KONNUR,
AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
JUNIPETH, ITI GALLI, AT: RAMDURG-591123,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. SRI.SANJAY S/O. BASAVESHWAR KONNUR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, CONTRACTOR,
R/O: GOVT. QUARTERS, P.H.C.,
SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SMT.RAJESHWAR W/O. SHIVANAND MALANKE,
AGED ABOUT: 56 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: PLOT NO.497, "SANNAVVA KRUPA"
SECTION-III, M.M. EXTN.,
SHIVABASAVA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
6. SMT.GEETA W/O. U.C. SHIVAKUMAR KOTHALE,
AGED ABOUT: 64 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KENCHALURKOPPA ONI,
NEAR NAVALAGI DISPENSARY,
SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-5-
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
7. SMT.AKKAMAHADEVI @ SAVITA VALKESHAR
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KENCHALURKOPPA ONI,
NEAR NAVALAGI DISPENSARY,
SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. SMT.VIJAYA W/O. VISHWANATH ALLANNAVAR
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: KENCHALURKOPPA ONI,
NEAR NAVALAGI DISPENSARY,
SAUNDATTI-591126, DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. SMT.JAYASHRI @ NIRMALA
W/O. ARUNKUMAR KURBET,
AGED ABOUT: 62 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: SOMAWAR PETH,
NEAR URBAN BANK,
NEAR HANAGUND HOUSE, GOKAK-591307.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH ADVOCATE FOR C/R1-R5;
SRI. SANTOSH S. HATTIKATAGI ADVOCATE FOR R6-R9)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF C.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE /
ISSUE NO.2 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMDURG AT
RAMDURG, DISMISSING THEIR SUIT IN O.S. 54/2015 AS
NOT MAINTANABLE AND CONSEQUINTLY DIRECT THE
SAID COURT TO RESTORE THE SAID SUIT TO ITS FILE
AND TO DISPOSE IT OFF ON MERITS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY VENKATESH NAIK T. J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-6-
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramadurg (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court', for short), in O.S.No.54/2015, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs as not maintainable on preliminary issue No.2.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants contending that the suit properties originally belonged to Kulkarni Family and plaintiffs have been cultivating the suit schedule properties since time immemorial, as tenants of Kulkarni Family. The plaintiffs are basically illiterate, except the work of agriculture, they have no other worldly knowledge. After the introduction of Land -7- RFA No. 100225 of 2019 Reforms Act, 1974, the Government introduced the scheme calling upon the occupants of agricultural lands to file a declaration before the Land Tribunal, claiming their occupancy rights prior to 01.03.1974. Though the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the suit schedule lands and have been cultivating the same peacefully with the knowledge of erstwhile Kulkarni Family, but the owners of the schedule property, taking undue advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the civil rights of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property, started doing tactics to oust the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.
4. In order to protect their rights, the plaintiffs and their ancestors approached the late Sri.B. C. Konnur, Advocate. Though the plaintiffs are actually cultivating the suit schedule lands as tenants, late Sri.B. C. Konnur, Advocate, gave an assurance that their names would be declared before the Land Tribunal, Ramadurg, as tenants. According to the -8- RFA No. 100225 of 2019 plaintiffs, they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit lands within the knowledge of Kulkarni Family and even to the defendants. The plaintiffs entrusted the matter before the Land Tribunal regarding declaration of their tenancy over the suit schedule property, to Sri.B. C. Konnur, Advocate. However, instead of he himself appearing before the Land Tribunal, made one of his colleagues to appear on behalf of the plaintiffs. Though his said colleague appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, Sri. B. C. Konnur, misusing the confidence and trust reposed by the plaintiffs in him, hatched up a plan to grab the suit property for himself. The plaintiffs and their ancestors gave a statement before the Land Tribunal, Ramdurg, stating that, whatever their advocate Sri. B. C. Konnur submits is true and correct and it is for the benefit of the plaintiffs, without having a slightest idea that they are being deceived by their owners and advocate. Hence the plaintiffs remained in dark about the mischief done by their counsel. In fact, Sri. B. C. -9- RFA No. 100225 of 2019 Konnur submitted before the Land Tribunal through his colleague that his brother Channabasappa Konnur was the tenant of the suit property and accordingly, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of the suit property in favour of the said Channabasappa Konnur. Though the occupancy rights were got granted in favour of Channabasappa Konnur, in fact the plaintiffs are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property exclusively till date. By virtue of the occupancy rights granted in favour of Channabasappa Konnur, defendants started to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Hence the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration, possession and permanent injunction.
5. After filing of the suit before the trial Court, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement contending that the claim of the plaintiffs is false. The defendants have taken the
- 10 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019contention that the plaintiffs are neither the tenants nor cultivators of the suit property and the allegations in the plaint that the plaintiffs are tenants of the suit property is totally false, fictitious and imaginary and hence the defendants have denied the allegations made against them. Further, the defendants have taken the contention that the suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is not maintainable and further, several proceedings and decrees are passed by various Courts in respect of the rights of the defendants over their family properties, including the suit properties. Thus, without seeking the declaration with respect to those decrees, the present suit is not maintainable. Hence the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the occupancy right in respect of suit properties granted by Land
- 11 -RFA No. 100225 of 2019
Tribunal Ramdurg in favour of Channamallappa C. Konnur is not binding on the plaintiffs?
2) Whether the suit is maintainable?
3) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they are in possession of the suit properties?
4) Whether the defendant No.4 proves that defendant No.1 to 5 have become absolute owners in possession of the suit lands by virtue of compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 76/2014?
5)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as sought by?
6) What order or decree?
7. During the trial, the defendants have filed I.A.No.4 under Section 15 of CPC for treating issue No.2 as preliminary issue and the said I.A. came to be allowed. Issue No.2 is treated as preliminary issue accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.
8. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree have filed this appeal.
- 12 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that though the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Channabasappa Konnur but the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. The trial Court could have entertained the suit for Injunction. The trial Court committed an error in passing impugned judgment. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the defendants supports the impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
13. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs as not maintainable?
(ii) What order or decree?
- 13 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
14. Point No.(i): It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the plaintiffs are claiming to be in possession of the suit schedule properties as tenants and the defendants are also claiming to be in possession of the suit properties as tenants. Both were claiming as tenants of the suit lands. The Land Tribunal, Ramdurg, after holding an enquiry and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has passed an order under Section 48-A(6) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
15. The order passed by the Land Tribunal is final. In order to consider the case in hand, it is necessary to examine some of the provisions. We would like to refer to Sections 48-A, 132 and 135 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which reads as follows:
48A. Enquiry by the Tribunal, etc.--(1) Every person entitled to be registered as an occupant under section 45 may make an application to the Tribunal in this behalf. Every such application shall, save as provided in this Act, be made 1 [before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the commencement of section 1 of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1978]1 , 2 [x x x]2 1.
Substituted by Act 1 of 1979 w.e.f. 1.3.1974. 2. Omitted by Act 1 of 1979 w.e.f 1.3.1974.
- 14 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019(2) On receipt of the application, the Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the village in which the land is situated calling upon the landlord and all other persons having an interest in the land to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. The Tribunal shall also 1962: KAR. ACT 10] Land Reforms 73 issue individual notices to the persons mentioned in the application and also to such others as may appear to it to be interested in the land.
(3) The form of the application, the form of the notices, the manner of publishing or serving the notices and all other matters connected therewith shall be such as may be prescribed. 1 [The Tribunal may for valid and sufficient reasons permit the tenant to amend the application.]1 1. Inserted by Act 1 of 1979 w.e.f. 1.3.1974. (4) Where no objection is filed, the Tribunal may, after such verification as it considers necessary, by order either grant or reject the application.
(5) Where an objection is filed disputing the validity of the applicant's claim or setting up a rival claim, the Tribunal shall, after enquiry, determine, by order, the person entitled to be registered as occupant and pass orders accordingly. 1 [(5A) Where there is no objection in respect of any part of the claim, the Tribunal may at once pass orders granting the application as regards that part and proceed separately in respect of the other part objected to.]1 1. Inserted by Act 23 of 1977 w.e.f. 1.3.1974.
(6) 1 [The order of the Tribunal under this section shall be final and the Tribunal shall]1 send a copy of every order passed by it to the Tahsildar and the parties concerned. 2 [Provided that the Tribunal may, on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by it.]2 3 [Provided further that the Tribunal may on its own or on the application of any of the parties, for reasons to be recorded in writing correct the extent of land in any order passed by it after causing actual measurement and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concern- parties.]3 1. Substituted by Act 18 of 1890 w.e.f. 8.10.1990
2. Inserted by Act 3 of 1982 w.e.f. 1.3.1974. 3. Inserted by Act 31 of 1995 w.e.f. 20.10.1995.
- 15 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019(7) The person to be registered as an occupant shall pay to the State Government as premium an amount equal to fifteen times the net annual income referred to in sub- section (2) of section 47 in the case of A Class, B Class and C Class lands referred to in part A of Schedule 1 and twenty 74 Land Reforms [1962: KAR. ACT 10 times such income in the case of D Class land referred to in the said Part A, plus the amount, if any, payable under sub-section (3) of that section: Provided that the premium payable by a permanent tenant shall be six times the difference between the rent and the land revenue of the land.
(8) Where no application is made within the time allowed under subsection (1), the right of any person to be registered as an occupant shall have no effect.
132. Bar of jurisdiction.--
(1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, [an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Section 83,] [the Tribunal] [the Tahsildar], the [Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,] or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control.
(2) No order of the Deputy Commissioner, [an officer authorized under sub-section (1) of section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under section 83.] [the
- 16 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019Tribunal], [the Tahsildar], the [Karnataka Appellate Tribunal], or the State Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal court
133. Suits, proceedings, etc., involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal.--(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force,--
(i) no Civil or Criminal Court or officer or Authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land, decide the question whether such land is or is not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March 1974;
(ii) such Court or officer or Authority shall stay such suit or proceedings in so far as such question is concerned and refer the same to the Tribunal for decision;
(iii) all interim orders issued or made by such Court, officer or Authority, whether in the nature of temporary injunction or appointment of a Receiver or otherwise, concerning the land
- 17 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019shall stand dissolved or vacated, as the case may be;
(iv) the Tribunal shall decide the question referred to it under clause (i) and communicate its decision to such Court, officer or authority. The decision of the Tribunal shall be final. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall preclude the Civil or Criminal Court or the officer or authority from proceeding with the suit, case or proceedings in respect of any matter other than that referred to in that sub-section.]
16. As per sub-section (6) of Section 48-A of the KLR Act, the order passed by the Land Tribunal shall be final. When the statute gives a finality to the orders of the Land Tribunals, the Act expressly exclude the Civil Courts jurisdiction in regard to the tenancy matters. Section 132 of Land Reforms Act contemplates that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court or Criminal Court or Officer or authority stood ousted in matters where a decision had to be taken as to whether the land in question was agricultural land or not and whether the
- 18 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019person claiming to be in possession, is or is not a tenant of the said land prior to 1st April, 1974. In the instant case, the question as to whether Channabasappa Konnur was a tenant or not and whether the plaintiffs had given their consent to such claim, is in the domain of the Land Tribunal and it has been clearly held by the trial Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said question. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dhulabhai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1969 SC 78, examined the question as to when the jurisdiction of the civil court can be held to have been expressly or impliedly excluded in trying a civil suit in the context of Section 9 of the CPC, wherein it is held as under:
" 32. Neither of the two cases of Firm of Illuri Subayya, 1964-1 SCR 752 = (AIR 1964 SC 322) or Kamla Mills, 1966 1 SCR 64 = (AIR 1965 SC 1942) can be said to run counter to the series of cases earlier noticed. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressed in this Court may be stated as follows:
(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to
- 19 -RFA No. 100225 of 2019
be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.
(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.
(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies.
(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of
- 20 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.
(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply."
and further the Hon'ble Apex Court considering the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhulabai (supra) has reiterated the same in the case of Comptent Authority, Calcutta, Under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and another v. David Manthosh and others reported in (2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 542 wherein it is held as under:
" 47. Having examined the issue, we are clearly of the opinion that the present case falls under clause(1) of para 32 of Dhulabhai and satisfies the test laid down therein. Hence, the jurisdiction of the civil court is held to be excluded by implication to try the civil suit in question. This we say for the following reasons:
47.1. First, the Act in question gives finality to the orders passed by the appellate authority[refer to section 33(3)] .
47.2. Second, the Act provides adequate remedies in the nature of appeals, such as first appeal to the Tribunal and second appeal to the High Court [refer to Sections 12(4), 13 and 33(1)].
47.3. Third, the Act is a complete code in itself and gives overriding powers on other laws (refer to Section 42).
- 21 -
RFA No. 100225 of 201947.4. Fourth, the Act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to the cases falling under Sections 30 and 40 [refer to Section 30(5) and Section 40]. 47.5. Fifth, as a result of dismissal of writ petition and SLP, it is held therein that the proceedings under the Act in question were done in conformity with the Act in question."
17. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwaragouda and others v. Mallikarjun Gowda and others reported in (2009)1 Supreme Court Cases 626 has held that, "once the Land Tribunal decides the question of tenancy, the Civil Court cannot have jurisdiction to decide the said dispute in a civil proceeding in view of Section 133 of the Act. Such a decision of the Land Tribunal also cannot come under challenge before any civil Court and if any order is passed by the civil Court setting aside the decision of the Land Tribunal, such an order would be a nullity". The said view has been supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of R. Ravindra Reddy & Ors. Vs. H. Ramaiah Redday & Ors., passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6286/2009 dated 17.02.2010.
- 22 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019
18. Admittedly the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Channabasappa Konnur. The said order passed by the land tribunal is final under sub-section (6) of Section 48-A of the KLR Act. Against the said order, the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal.
19. We are of the opinion that, if at all the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the same, they can challenge the same before the appropriate forum but not by way of suit, as the civil Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the order passed by the Land Tribunal. Hence, we find that there is no merit in the appeal.
20. In view of above discussion, we answer Point No.(i) in the negative.
21. Point No.(ii): We proceed to pass following ORDER Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramadurg, in O.S.No.54/2015, is confirmed.
- 23 -
RFA No. 100225 of 2019No order as to the cost.
In view of disposal of the main appeal, I.A.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Gab Kmv from para 9-15(48-A), 16(47.5) & 18-21 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12