JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - Opposite party No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed O.S. No. 22 of 1968 in The Court of The Munsif, Khurda, for issue of a permanent injunction against the Petitioners and opposite party No. 2 (Defendants). Petitioner No. 1 is the wife ?of Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 are brothers. The Plaintiff?s case is that he was a Bhag tenant under the Petitioners and opposite party No. 2 who were his landlords. On an allegation that the landlords were attempting to interfere with his possession the relief of permanent injunction was sought. Petitioners and opposite party No. 2 raised a preliminary objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant injunction on the Plaintiff?s own case that he was a Bhag tenant under the Defendants who were his landlords. The learned Munsif, Khurda, by the impugned order dated 611.1970 held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant injunction. It is against this order that the civil revision has been filed. 2. The only question for consideration is whether on the plaint case itself the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. 3. Mr. Harichandan places reliance on Section 15(1)(b), (5), (6) and (7) and Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Orissa Act 16 of 1960) (hereinafter to be referred to a the Act) in support of his contention. For appreciation of the question in issue those provisions may be extracted: 15. (1) Any claim for recovery of arrears of rent by a landlord and any dispute between a landlord and his raiyat or tenant as the case may be as regards xx xx xx xx (b) tenant?s possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under this Act ; or xx xx xx xx (5) If after holding enquiry under Sub-section (2) the Revenue Officer is satisfied that the tenant was cultivating the land at the date of commencement of this Act or at any time thereafter, and that he is being unlawfully prevented from cultivating such land by his landlord, he may in addition to the penalty that be may impose on the landlord u/s 18, order the landlord by a notice served in the prescribed manner to allow the tenant to enter the land forthwith and to cultivate it as a tenant. (6) If the revenue Officer is satisfied after such further enquiry as he may deem necessary that the landlord has failed to comply with his order under Sub-section (5), he shall take such steps as may be necessary to put the tenant in possession of the land. (7) Pending final disposal of the dispute under this section, the Revenue Officer may pass such interim orders relating to the appointment of Receivers, for taking charge of the crops, or getting the lands cultivated or for such other purposes as he may deem necessary or expedient. 67. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far it relates to any matter which any Officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide. 4. u/s 15(1)(b) any dispute between a landlord and his raiyat or tenant as regards tenant?s possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under the Act shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on an application to be filed by any party interested. Therefore, if the dispute is whether the tenant is in possession of the disputed land and his possession is being interfered with, it must be decided by the Revenue Officer and ?not by the Civil Court. 5. If the Revenue Officer has been vested with powers to grant injunction, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall be ousted. Section 67 of the Act makes a clear provision in that regard. It says that save as ?otherwise expressly provided in the Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any Officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under the Act to decide. 6. It would be appropriate to examine if Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 15 of the Act confer any power on the Revenue Officer to grant injunction. Section 15(5) makes a clear provision in that regard. 6. It would be appropriate to examine if Sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 15 of the Act confer any power on the Revenue Officer to grant injunction. Section 15(5) makes a clear provision in that regard. If the Revenue Officer is satisfied that the tenant was cultivating the land at the date of commencement of the Act or at any time thereafter, and that he is being unlawfully prevented from cultivating such land by his landlord, he may order the landlord by a notice served in the prescribed manner to allow the tenant to enter the land forthwith and to cultivate it as a tenant. The conditions essential for the operation of Sub-section (5) are (i) the tenant must be in possession; (ii) he is being unlawfully prevented from such land and (iii) if the first two conditions are fulfilled, the Revenue Officer would issue a notice to the landlord in the prescribed manner not to interfere with the tenant?s possession and to allow him to cultivate. These elements are substantially what is required in the matter of issuing an injunction. Sub-section (6) vests the Revenue Officer with power to Bee that the order issued by him under Sub-section (5) is enforced. If the landlord fails to comply with such order the Revenue Officer shall take steps to put the tenant in possession of the land. Sub-section (7) deals with various other types of interim orders but does not refer to what is covered by Sub-sections (5) and (6). 7. It is clear from the aforesaid analysis that? the Revenue Officer has been vested with powers to grant the relief of injunction. As the Act empowers the Revenue Officer to grant injunction in suitable cases, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant the same relief is clearly barred by Section 67. 8. Section 3 lays down that save as otherwise provided the provisions of the Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, custom or usage or agreement, decree or order of Court. Though the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC or permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act, it cannot exercise that jurisdiction in respect of disputes between a landlord and his tenant contemplated by Section 15(1)(b) of the Act the preliminary objection must therefore prevail. Though the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction under Order 39 CPC or permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act, it cannot exercise that jurisdiction in respect of disputes between a landlord and his tenant contemplated by Section 15(1)(b) of the Act the preliminary objection must therefore prevail. The learned Munsif, Khurda, has no jurisdiction to try this suit where the main relief is for issue of permanent injunction. 9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision is allowed. In the circumstance, parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Allowed