P A HABEEB KHAN Vs. ASHIA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter coming up for orders, by consent of Counsel for parties, is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The short question which falls to be answered in this revision petition arising under Sec. 121A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is whether the appellate authority erred in passing the order under revision by directing the parties to seek their remedies in the appropriate forum on account of the difference of opinion between them in regard to grant of temporary injunction in favour of the appellant before the appellate authority. It suffices to state that the appellant had enjoyed protection of his possession till the Land Tribunal decided against him out of which the appeal arose which is now pending before the appellate authority. In that circumstance, having lost before the Land Tribunal and having filed the appeal, he prayed for continuing that protection. The learned Judicial Member has held that appellant's possession should be protected while the Revenue Member has disagreed.

(3.) However, instead of following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 116B of the Act, they have left it vaguely to be decided by a forum at the instance of the parties before it This amounts to failing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the appellate authority. To hold that Sec. 116B of the Act does not provide for reference to the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in the case of difference except in cases of final adjudication is erroneous and patently illegal. A reading of Sec. 116B of the Act makes it abundantly clear that on all material points on which there is a difference of opinion between the judicial member and the revenue member, the matter must be referred for adjudication finally by the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in the area. Possession of the disputed land whether tenanted or not is a material point on which there has been a difference. Therefore, question of granting injunction to protect possession is equally a material point on which there has been difference, admittedly. Therefore, the members of the appellate authority ought to have referred the matter 10 the Civil Judge having jurisdiction in the area for final adjudication of that question. Having failed to do so, they have not only acted illegally and irregularly but also have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them.