ARVINDRAO Vs. BANDALA IRANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises under the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1962, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The petitioner filed an application under S.14 of the Act for resumption of the lands covered by S.Nos.912 and 913 of Kallur village of Manwi Taluk in Raichur District. In the petition it is stated that the respondent is the protected tenant of the lands and that the lands are required by the petitioner for his personal cultivation. The respondent while admitting that he is the tenant in respect of the lands, denied that the petitioner is the owner of the said lands. His further case is that the petitioner's father who was the owner of the lands had sold the same to the sons of the respondent for a consideration of Rs.5,000 in the year 1964 The Court dismissed the application on the ground that there is dispute concerning the title of the petitioner which the Court has no jurisdiction to try The said order of the Court has been affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the above revision petition The question is whether the Court under the Act has no jurisdiction to try the issue whether the respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of the lands sought to be resumed S.14 of the Act provides for filling an application for resumption of land from a tenant on the ground that the landlord requires the land for cultivating personally or for any non-agricultural purpose There are conditions subject to which resumption can be ordered It is unnessary for the purpose of this petition to refer to the said conditions. S.112 enumerates the duties and functions to be performed by the Court. One of the duties and functions to be performed by the Court is to decide whether a person is a tenant or not, vide Cl.(b) of S.112. S.2(34) of the Act defines the word 'tenant' thus:

(2.) A person making an application under S.14 has to establish that he is the landlord and that the respondent is his tenant in respect of the lands sought to be resumed. If the respondent disputes the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant with respect to the lands sought to be resumed, then the Court has to decide whether the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the said lands. The Act has not provided that if there is a dispute between the parties on the question of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, that the matter should be decided by a Civil Court.

(3.) The jurisdiction of the Court under the Act depends upon the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the lands sought to be resumed. If the existence of that fact is disputed, the Court cannot proceed to act unless that dispute is settled. In the absence of a separate machinery for settlement of the said dispute, the Court has the duty of deciding the existence of the jurisdictional fact. In Maji Thimmanna v. State of Mysore, 1959 Mys.L.J. 109, which was a case under, the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, this is what this Court has stated: