Karnataka High Court
Shankarappa Gowda And Another vs Indudhara Gowda on 30 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: ILR2000KAR2298, 2000(5)KARLJ122
Author: S.R. Venkatesha Murthy
Bench: S.R. Venkatesha Murthy
ORDER
1. At the stage of admission, the matter is heard and disposed of.
2. The respondent-plaintiff herein instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners herein and sought and obtained an ad interim injunction restraining the defendarts from interfering with the possession of the property. The defendants who contested the claim of the plaintiff raised a contention that the first defendant has filed a declaration in Form 7-A on 17-12-1998 before the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and the matter is pending consideration and sought under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called as 'Act') for stay of further proceedings till such time as Form 7-A filed by the first defendant was disposed of.
3. The property that is involved in the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent is 3 acres and 7 guntas of land in Sy. No. 213/2 of Anaji Village in Soraba Taluk. The plaintiff tracing the history of title to the property sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with his possession of the property. As already observed, the first defendant raised a contention that under Section 77-A of the Act, that he has filed a declaration Form 7-A, and therefore the matter was required to be stayed.
4. The Civil Judge, Junior Division relied upon the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court in B.V. Subbackari u B.K. Joyappa and Tulasamma u M. Srinivasan and came to the conclusion that 1A IV staying further proceedings in the suit till adjudication of Form 7-A filed, was misconceived and rejected the same. Hence, this Revision.
5. Section 77-A of the Land Reforms Act reads as follows:
"77-A. Grant of land in certain cases.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, if the Deputy Commissioner or the Special Deputy Commissioner is satisfied after holding such enquiry as he deems fit, that a person
(i) was, immediately before the first day of March, 1974 in actual possession and cultivation of any land not exceeding one unit, which has vested in the State Government under Section 44, and
(ii) being entitled to be registered as an occupation of such land under Section 45 or 49 has failed to apply for registration of occupancy rights in respect of such land under sub-section (1) of Section 48-A within the period specified therein, and
(iii) has continued to be in actual possession and cultivation of such land on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1997, he may grant the land to such person subject to such restrictions and conditions and in the manner, as may be prescribed".
By the Amendment Act No. 23 of 1998, which came into effect from 1-11-1998, the above said provision has become law.
6. The first defendant claims that he has filed a declaration in Form 7-A before the Deputy Commissioner for grant of the land in question. Section 132 of the Land Reforms Act deals with jurisdiction of a Civil Court to settle/decide or deal with, matters as are required to be done by the Deputy Commissioner, as in this case.
7. It is clear, therefore, that in respect of matters covered by Section 77-A of the Act, the Civil Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction which is exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner.
8. Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act will not apply to proceedings under Section 77-A of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner who is empowered to deal with an application in Form 7-A is a distinct entity and cannot be equated with the Land Tribunal which is constituted under a separate provision of the Land Reforms Act. Likewise, the power of the Land Tribunal is also defined by specific provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
9. The consequence of application, under Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act would be that any interim order issued or made by the Court in the nature of a temporary injunction or appointment of a receiver concerning the land would stand dissolved or vacated, when once a reference is made to the Land Tribunal. But, where an application is made in Rule Form 7-A to the Deputy Commissioner, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to grant and maintain ad interim injunction or appoint a receiver or deal with property is not affected in any manner as no part of Section 133 of the Act would be applicable to the situation.
10. In this situation, though Section 133 of the Act is inapplicable to the facts of the case, the power that was invoked by the petitioner for stay of further proceedings in this Court till the disposal of the application in Form 7-A must be read as akin to one under Section 10 of the CPC. Obviously, in order to avoid conflict between decisions of the Civil Court and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, it is appropriate that the proceedings before the Civil Court should be stayed till the disposal of the application in Form 7-A filed by the petitioner.
11. In these circumstances, the Revision deserves to be allowed staying the further proceedings in the suit, till the disposal of Form 7-A filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision is allowed in terms stated above.