HADALI RAJEEVA SHETTY Vs. MANJAYYA SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art.227, raises a short but an important question. The question is, whether the Asst. Commr., while holding a summary enquiry under S.83 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (Act 10 of 1962), hereinafter referred to as the Act, could decide whether a person is a tenant or not.

(2.) The facts leading to the petition are simple and all I need say is this-On 14th May 1969, the petitioner purchased certain agricultural lands from Respt.2. Respst.1 claiming to be the tenant of the said land, filed an application before the Asst. Commr under S.83 of the Act. He prayed therein that the sale in favour of the petitioner should be declared invalid. The Asst. Commr. held an enquiry and set aside the sale, holding that Respt.1 was a tenant and the impugned sale was in contravention of S.39 of the Act. It may be relevant to state that under S.39 it is obligatory for the landlord to offer his lands to his tenant before he sells the same to any other person. It was found in the instant case that Respt.2 did not make such an offer to respondent 1.

(3.) Against the order of the Asst. Commr. the petitioner appealed before the Kamataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal The main question urged before the Tribunal was relating to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commr. to decide the disputed question of tenancy set up by Respt.1. It was urged that in a summary jurisdiction vested in the Asst. Commr. under S.83, the Aa'st. Commr. has no power to decide the question of tenancy as the same is required to be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal did not agree with the contention. It held that though S.132 of the Act ba,rs the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the disputed -question of tenancy claimed by any party, that bar canno,t be extended to the Asst. Commr. who is required to hold an enquiry regarding the validity of any sale complained of. The Tribunal observed : " The intention of the Legislature is clear, namely that only the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide such questions is barred and not any other authority." The Revenue Appellate Tribunal after referring to, Ss.82, 83, 112, 132 and 133 of the Act observed that it ig only the Civil Court which could make a reference in respect of any issue arising in the suit which is required to be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act and no such power is given to the Asst. Commr. while holding a summary enquiry under S.83. The Tribunal further held that the power to hold a summary enquiry regarding the sale complained' of also includes the power to determine all questions relating to the validity of the sale. Thereupon, the Tribunal considered the merits of the case on evidence and recorded a finding that Respt.1 is a tenant of the lands purchased by the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal was accordingly dismissed,