Karnataka High Court
Ramachandra S/O Nagapathi Bhat vs The Chief Secretary on 12 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095
RSA No. 5200 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
RSA NO. 5200 OF 2008 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMACHANDRA S/O. NAGAPATHI BHAT,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SUGAVI(VILLAGE AND POST),
TQ. SIRSI.
2. SRI. KRISHNA S/O. NAGAPATHI BHAT,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SUGAVI(VILLAGE AND POST),
TQ. SIRSI.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR A1;
SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR A2)
Digitally
AND:
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2024.12.18
10:07:17
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY
+0530
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR.
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
SIRSI RANGE, SIRSI.
4. SHRI SRIPATHI S/O. NARAYAN BHAT,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095
RSA No. 5200 of 2008
4A. SMT. GOURI W/O. LATE SRI. SRIPATHI BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SUGAVI(VILLAGE AND POST),
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
4B. NARAYANA S/O. LATE SRI. SRIPATHI BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SUGAVI(VILLAGE AND POST),
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
4C. VINAYAKA S/O. LATE SRI. SRIPATHI BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SUGAVI(VILLAGE AND POST),
TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
4D. SMT. MALATHI W/O. NAGAPATHI HEGDE BULLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NANIKATTA (VILLAGE AND POST),
TYAGALI, TQ. SIDDAPURA,
DIST. UTTARA KANNADA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KESHAVAREDDY, AAG FOR
SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VISHWANATH HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 ( A TO D);
R4-DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 12.08.2008 PASSED IN
R.A.NO:57/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN),
SIRSI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.04.1995 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.253/1990 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN)
THEN MUNSIFF AT SIRSI, DISMISSING DECLARATION AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095
RSA No. 5200 of 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
Assailing the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below the plaintiffs are before this Court in this regular second appeal.
2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 16.09.2009 framed the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the Courts below have committed a concurrent error in dismissing the suit as not maintainable without considering the proviso to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act?"
3. The counsel for the appellants and the counsel appearing for the respondents have been heard on the substantial question of law framed by this Court.
4. Suit for relief of declaration to declare that the suit schedule Item Nos.2 to 4 are left for the beneficial enjoyment of suit schedule Item No.1 and directing the defendants to make entries in the record of rights and for -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
5. Undisputed facts are that:
(i) Suit Item No.1 property is a bagayat land.
(ii) Suit Item Nos.2 to 4 are betta lands.
(iii) That the Government granted Item No.1 to one Sanya Hanuma Naik.
(iv) That on 03.01.1986 plaintiff No.1 purchased the suit Item No.1 property from Sanya Hanuma Naik.
6. The plaintiffs contend that prior to the year 1901 Item Nos.2 to 4 of the suit properties were left for the beneficial enjoyment of Item No.1 property and after the grant in favour of Sanya Hanuma Naik, the benefits of Item Nos.2 to 4 were enjoyed by the grantee of Item No.1 property and pursuant to the purchase by plaintiff No.1 of Item No.1 property from Sanya Hanuma Naik they are enjoying the suit Item Nos.2 to 4 properties for the beneficial enjoyment of Item No.1 property. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008
7. Defendants contended that in the year 1952 Item No.1 land was granted to Sanya Hanuma Naik by the Government, when the land was granted the benefits or the privileges from the betta lands i.e., Item Nos.2 to 4 were not transferred to said Sanya Hanuma Naik.
8. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether plaintiffs prove that items No. 2 to 4 of Para-1 of the plaint are left for better cultivation of plaint item No. 1 property right from 1901?
(2) Whether plaintiffs further prove that on account of their purchase of suit plaint item No. 1 property on 3-1-1986 the grant of betta lands for better cultivation of plaint item No. 1 property is automatically revived? (3) Whether defendants 1 to 4 prove that plaint items No. 2 to 4 have been given for better cultivation, for other than plaint item No. 1 property?
(4) Whether fourth defendant proves that third defendant permitted him, to use plaint items No. 2 to 4 to his survey numbers, as pleaded in Para-4 of his W.S?-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 (5) Whether suit is hit by the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?
(6) Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference as pleaded in plaint Para-5?
(7) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as sought?
(8) What Decree or Order?"
9. The trial Court based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that:
(i) While answering Issue Nos.1 to 4 the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have purchased Item No.1 under registered sale deed 03.01.1986 and the plaintiffs have failed to establish the grant of betta lands Item Nos.2 to 4 for better cultivation of suit property Item No.1.
(ii) While answering Issue No.5 the trial Court holds that the suit is hit by the provisions of Karnataka -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial Court by the judgment and decree dismissed the suit.
10. Aggrieved the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court while appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they continued to enjoy the betta land Item Nos.2 to 4 for better enjoyment of suit Item No.1 bagayat land and that there was no order for beneficial use of Item Nos.2 to 4 and also held that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable before the Civil Court and dismissed the suit confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit Item No.1 property was purchased by the plaintiffs from the grantee and suit Item No.1 property had beneficial enjoyment from Item Nos.2 to 4 properties -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 and pursuant to the grant the right to claim beneficial enjoyment was granted to Sanya Hanuma Naik and the plaintiffs being purchasers of suit Item No.1 have right to claim beneficial enjoyment in respect of Item Nos.2 to 4 properties. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below having held that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable under Section 135 of the Act ought to have granted liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the appropriate authorities and could not have passed the order on merits of the case. Learned counsel submits that Courts below have fell in error in holding that the suit as not maintainable without considering the suit falls within the proviso to section 135 of the Act.
12. Per contra, Sri.Keshavareddy, learned AAG submits that the merits addressed by the Courts below was in light to answer Issue No.5 regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit and the appellants cannot contend that the Courts below could not have passed any order on merits of the matter. Learned -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 counsel submits that the Item Nos.2 to 4 properties for the beneficial enjoyment of Item No.1 property cannot be automatically revived as there was no specific order stating that the benefits available under Item Nos.2 to 4 properties would transfer in light of the grant of Item No.1 property and the Courts below have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as claimed in the plaint. The suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable under section 135 or proviso to section 135 of the Act and warrants no interference by this Court.
13. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.
14. The law is well settled that when a Court holds that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the Court cannot consider the matter on merits. It is also well settled that in order for a Court to arrive at a conclusion that the suit is not maintainable, the rights of the parties had to be determined, then the Court can look into the merits of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 matter and arrive at a conclusion that the suit is maintainable or not.
15. Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 reads as under;
"135. Bar of suits.--No suit shall lie against the State Government or any officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this Chapter or to have any such entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in any record or register maintained under this Chapter, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration."
16. Section 135 of the Act clearly mandates that no suit shall lie against the State Government or any Officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register i.e., maintained under this chapter. Proviso to Section 135 of the Act clearly envisages that the suit is maintainable that the
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 person is aggrieved to any right of which is in possession, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for declaration of his right and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with such declaration. Thus for the person to fit in the proviso to Section 135 of the Act has to establish his right and when there is denial of title institute suit against any person denying his title by seeking declaration and in such cases the suit seeking entry in record of rights would be maintainable and not otherwise. In the instant case there is no right which the plaintiff possessed for seeking declaration The relief sought is that item Nos.2 to 4 were for beneficial use of item No.1 the granted land, there is no order in the grant of item No.1 that item Nos.2 to 4 to be used for beneficial of item No.1 and thus directing to enter the name in the revenue records without any right was not maintainable before the Civil Court. Section 61 of the Act, creates a total bar of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and envisages exclusive jurisdiction of revenue Courts which reads as under;
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 "61. Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts and bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts.-- (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, a Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction to determine, decide or dispose of, any matter which it is, by or under this Act, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of and no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to any of such matters.
(2) Subject to the exceptions hereinafter specified, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction as to any of the following matters, namely:--
(a) Claims against the Government relating to any property appertaining to any office or for any service whatsoever;
(b) Objections,--
(i) to the amount or incidence of any
assessment of land revenue under this Act, or
(ii) to the mode of assessment or levy, or to the principle on which such assessment or levy is fixed, or
(iii) to the validity or effect of the notification of survey or settlement;
(c) claims connected with or arising out of any proceedings for the realisation of land revenue or other demands recoverable as arrears of land revenue under this Act, or any other law for the time being in force;
(d) claims to set aside, on account of irregularity, mistake, or any other ground, except fraud, sales for arrears of land revenue;
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008
(e) claims against the Government,--
(i) To be entered in the revenue survey or settlement records or any land record as liable for the revenue or as superior holder, inferior holder, occupant, mortgagee, landlord or tenant;
(ii) To have any entry made in any record of a revenue survey or settlement, or
(iii) To have any such entry either omitted or amended;
(f) The distribution of land or allotment of land revenue on partition of any estate under this Act or any other law for the time being in force;
(g) Claims against the Government,--
(i) to hold land wholly or partly free from payment of land revenue; or
(ii) to receive payments charged on or payable out of the land revenue; or
(iii) to set aside any cess or rate payable under the provisions of any law for the time being in force; or
(iv) respecting the occupation of waste or vacant land belonging to Government;
(h) claims regarding boundaries fixed under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, or to set aside any order passed by a competent officer under any such law with regard to boundary marks or survey marks:
Provided that if any person claims to hold land wholly or partially exempt from payment of revenue under,--
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008
(a) any law for the time being in force expressly creating an exemption not before existing in favour of an individual, or of any class of persons, or expressly confirming such an exemption on the ground of its being shown in a public record, or of its having existed for a specified term of years, or
(b) any written grant from the Government expressly creating or confirming such exemption,
-such claim shall be cognizable by a Civil Court."
17. Section 63 of the Act envisages that the plaintiffs exhaust their right of appeal before instituting a suit or other proceedings against the Government. Under Section 135 of the Act, a suit is generally not maintainable in Civil Court concerning the matters that fall under jurisdiction of the revenue authorities particularly when it involves questions regarding land revenue, ownership or other relative matters.
18. Suit is held not maintainable on procedural ground (such as lack of jurisdiction), the merits of the case was examined as the Court had to look at the substance of the claim, the evidence presented and whether the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 plaintiffs had valid and legal right to seek the relief they are asking for and also to answer the maintainability of suit under Section 135 of the Act, incidentally the Courts had to look into the merits of the case. The merit case rejection by the Courts below is that, even if the case was brought before the appropriate Forum, the Court or the authority would likely have rejected it, based on the merits of the case. A suit to be not maintainable under Section 135 of the Act means that the dispute is related to the land revenue or title which must be adjudicated by the revenue authorities or revenue Courts, not by the Civil Court and the Court having held on merits that the plaintiffs relief is not legally sound, even if the jurisdiction was not an issue in such a case.
19. The plaintiffs seeking title was directly concerns the land revenue records, the Civil Court refused to hear the case on the ground that this type of matters dare within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities, even if a suit deemed not maintainable under Section 135
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:18095 RSA No. 5200 of 2008 of the Act, the Court may still assess the merits of the case to ensure that even if the matter was properly before a Court or authority with jurisdiction, it would not succeed. The Courts below have rightly held that the suit is not maintainable under Section 135 of the Act and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Regular Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.
(i) The judgment and decree of the Courts below stands confirmed.
SD/-
(JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA) RH - till para 15, PJ - from para 16;
CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41