TULASAMMA Vs. M SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard appellant's learned Advocate and respondent's learned advocate.

(2.) the principal ground on which the order passed by the trial court has been challenged by the appellant's learned Advocate is that according to him, the appellant had applied to the land reforms tribunal for a declaration in their favour in respect of the entire area of two acres of land. The tribunal upheld the appellant's contention to the extent of one acre and 10 guntas and disallowed it in respect of 30 guntas. It is in respect of this 30 guntas that the present dispute has arisen. It is his submission that this is a matter within the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction and that consequently, the civil court having regard to the Provisions of the Section 133 of the Land Reforms Act, has no jurisdiction to enquire into a dispute or pass any orders. He, therefore, submits, that in the first instance, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

(3.) as far as this point of law is concerned, the position is seriously contested by the respondent's learned advocate, who submits that this is a misconstruction of the Provisions of Section 133. He places reliance on a recent decision of this court reported in b.v. subbachari v b.k. joyappa. The learned single judge of this court had occasion to consider a situation where an injunction had been prayed for in respect of certain disputed lands on the basis of the possessary rights that were claimed and the bar under Section 133 was pleaded. In a considered judgment, the learned single judge took the view that the bar to jurisdiction under Section 133 is limited only to those cases where the dispute concerns the issue of tenancy or a declaration thereof and that consequently, the civil court was within its rights to entertain the suit in that case. Section 133, to my mind, is abundantly clear insofar as there can be no dispute about the fact that the legislature did set up a special forum for adjudication of all matters in relation to lands that were the subject matter of issues within the special jurisdiction of the tribunal and consequently, barred civil courts from exercising powers in respect thereof. In a case where the question of tenancy is not involved and no such declaration has been asked for and where the dispute projected before the civil court has nothing to do with the powers exercisable by the tribunal under the Land Reforms Act, a civil court would be perfectly within its jurisdiction to exercise powers. Under these circumstances, the submission with regard to the lack of jurisdiction of the civil court to my mind, requires to be rejected.