HADALI RAJEEVA SHETTY v. MANJAYYA SHETTY — 1974 DIGILAW 75 (KAR)

( 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. 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, ( 4 ) THE following provisions of the Act have got a bearing on the question to which an answer has to he fpund. The Act has been substantially amended by the Karnataka, Act I of 1974. S. 82 of the Act provides : " 82. Reporting of illegal transaction,- * * * *. * " [by Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973, the words 'court or other' in the above section are omitted and after the words 'of this Act' the words ' as they stood before and as they stand after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act' shall be inserted. ] section 83 provides :. " 83. Inquiry regarding illegal transactions,- * * * * *" [in Act I of 1974, after the words ' of this Act' in two places, the words ' as they stood before or as they stand after the date of commencement of the Amendment Act' shall be inserted. "] section 112 so far as it is relevant provides : " 112. Duties of Court.-For the, purpose of this Act the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Court, namely:- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . "] section 112 so far as it is relevant provides : " 112. Duties of Court.-For the, purpose of this Act the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Court, namely:- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) to decide whether a person is a tenant or not. " [the above question after the Karnataka Act I of 1974 is required to b decided by the Tribunal. ] section 132 provides : "132. Bar of jurisdiction,- * * * * " section 133 provdies : " 133. Suits involving issues required to be decided under this Act, * * * * * " to make the picture complete, I have to refer to Sec. 39 which provides that if a landlord at any time intends to sell the land held by a tenant, he shall first give option to his tenant by a notice in writing to purchase the land and in case where the tenant refuses to purchase, he may sell the land to others'. ( 5 ) THE Act has constituted different authorities to decide different questions. By reading Ss. 112, 132 and 133 it becomes clear that the Legislature wanted to bar the jursidiction of Civil Courts to decider whether a pereon is a tenant or not. The power to decide that question has been exclusively given to the Tribunal. The Asst Commr. has been constituted as a prescribed authority to determine the nature of the transaction complained of. He could invalidate any transaction by suo motu action or at the instance of the interested party. The power conferred on the Asst. Commr. is to hold a summary enquiry. In that limited jurisdiction, he cannot confer upon himself the power to decide any question which the Act expressly confers on the Tribunal. If the Legislature had intended that the Asst. Commr. also should decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not, nothing would have been easier to give expression to such an intention by express words in the enactment. ( 6 ) THE reasoning of the Tribunal that there is no provision made under the Act for the Asst. Commr. Commr. also should decide the question whether a person is a tenant or not, nothing would have been easier to give expression to such an intention by express words in the enactment. ( 6 ) THE reasoning of the Tribunal that there is no provision made under the Act for the Asst. Commr. to refer the disputed question of tenancy for decision to the Tribunal and therefore he should be held to have the power to decide the question is not warranted by the provisions of the Act. The Asst. Commr. , of course, is not competent to refer the disputed question of tenancy to the Tribunal. But that does not mean, he himself could decide that question. ( 7 ) IT was urged for Respt. 1 that the question whether Respt. 1 is a tenant or not is an incidental question and not a question relating to the jurisdiction of the Asst. Commr. to enquire into the sale complained of and therefore the Asst. Commr. was competent to decide the said question. It is difficult to accept this contention. The status of Respt. 1 is an important question to be decided by the Asst. Commr. before he makes a declaration invalidating the sale complained of. The Asst Commr. could declare the sale invalid only when he finds that Respt. 1 was a tenant and his landlord has not offered to Respt. 1 to purchase the land. The entire matter before the Asst. Commr. rests on the tenancy pleaded by respt. 1. It was not an incidental question which falls for adjudication before the Asst. Commr. It was one of the mam questions for decision. I do not think that the Asst. Commr. could decide such an important question affecting the rights of the parties in his summary jurisdiction. When there is no provision in the Act conferring jurisdiction on the Asst. Commr. to decide whether a person'is a tenant or not and when there is a special provision conferring power on the Tribunal to decide that question, it has to be held that the Asst. Commr. cannot decide the said question. The fact that the Asst Commr. has been conferred suo motu power to initiate proceedings for invalidating any transaction made in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, makes no logical distinction in the above proposition. Commr. cannot decide the said question. The fact that the Asst Commr. has been conferred suo motu power to initiate proceedings for invalidating any transaction made in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, makes no logical distinction in the above proposition. I may make it clear that in every case when tenancy is pleaded or disputed the Asst. Commr. need not stay his hands. If there is undisputed and unimpeachable evidence regarding the said question the Asst, Commr. would be Justified in continuing the proceedings. It is only when the question raised involves a bona fide dispute and is susceptible of two prima facie opinions, the Asst. Commr. would be well-advised to stop further proceedings and ask the person who is interesed in setting aside the transaction to go to the Tribunal for a declaration that he is a tenant of the disputed lands. When such a declaration is produced before him, he may proceed with the enquiry and make an order thereafter in accordance with law. The case on hand on perusal of the evidence, shows that there is a bona fide dispute on the tenancy pleaded by Respt. 1. The view taken by the Tribunal is therefore patently erroneous and the impugned orders must be held to be without authority ( 8 ) IN that view, I think it unnecessary to consider the other contentions raised by Counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. Liberty, however, is reserved to the parties to obtain proper declaration from the Tribunal constituted under the Act and to pursue their remedies before the Asst. Commr. under S. 83 of the Act. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .