Anjanappa vs Byrappa on 5 July, 1995
The claims of the plaintiffs was not allowed because had the claim been allowed, the plaintiff would have asserted like that and would have filed those documents in this case. It has been admitted by the witnesses of the plaintiff that plaintiff had moved the application before the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 9. Once this is the position, in my opinion, when the Special Forum has been provided for decision of those rights under the Act and when Section 31(3) specifically declared that the order passed by Special Deputy Commissioner cannot be challenged in any Court of Law except under the machinery provided under the Act, the order has become final and binding on the parties and that the Court below had no jurisdiction to take a view contrary. The Decision referred to above by the learned Counsel for the Respondents - Sri M.V. Seshachala, the case of Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy is a case under Section 48-A, with reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it is not directly on the provisions of Sections 9, 9-A, 10, 26 and 31(3) of the Inam Abolition Act. Even otherwise the principle that has been laid down at page 1374 is to the effect that the Civil Court cannot decide a question or issue relating to the tenancy. In this regard, the jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the Tribunal in regard to grant of occupancy rights to a tenant, it is the Tribunal alone which is competent to go into the question of tenancy and decide whether the occupancy rights should or should not be granted to an applicant. The Full Bench further observed that this being the position, an application made by a person exclusively claiming grant of occupancy rights as a tenant and another person making a rival claim of tenancy and grant of occupancy rights as a individual or on behalf of a joint family or for the benefit of a joint family can be considered only by the Tribunal and not by the Civil Court.