Judgment :- 1. This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is directed against Ext. P1, an order passed by the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar, Quilandy, disposing of an application filed by the petitioners under S.29 B of Act 1 of 1964 as amended by Act 35 of 1969 (briefly the 'Act'). 2. The petition filed by the petitioners under S.29 B of the Act related to 3 acres and 75 cents comprised in R. S. Nos. 39/1A and 40 of Mannanpoyil desom, R, S. No. 90 of Eramangalam desom and R. S. No. 35/3 of Panayi desom of Balusseri village. The 3rd respondent dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners' right over the property was already adjudged by the competent civil court. 3. It appears that the disputed property along with other items belong to the tarwad of the first respondent and that a suit for partition is pending as O. S. No. 172 of 1971. I am made to understand that these and other assets belonging to the first respondent's tarwad are in the possession of a receiver appointed from court. There were certain proceedings regarding the cultivation of these properties, and I am not directly concerned with those proceedings in this petition. The petitioners filed O. S. No. 157 of 1975 for an injunction to restrain the second respondent in this petition, who is the auction -purchaser from the Receiver. That suit was dismissed. The result was that the rights claimed by the petitioners over the disputed items of properties stood finally adjudicated by the competent civil court. It was, thereafter that the petition under S.29 B of the Act was filed by the petitioners before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent naturally dismissed the petition in view of the decision of the civil court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 3rd respondent has erred in relying on sub-section (3) of S.29B of the Act. S.29B deals with disputes regarding right to cultivate the land and sub-section (3) reads as follows: "[3]. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the 3rd respondent has erred in relying on sub-section (3) of S.29B of the Act. S.29B deals with disputes regarding right to cultivate the land and sub-section (3) reads as follows: "[3]. In any suit relating to any land in respect of which an application has been presented before the Tahsildar under sub-section [1] instituted by the opposite party after the date of such application, the court shall not grant an injunction restraining the applicant from cultivating the land, till the final decision in such suit." It could be seen from the wording of the provision that the suit contemplated therein is a suit by the owner of the property against a person, who professes to be the cultivator of the land, and who has already filed an application under S.29 B of the Act. In this case the suit itself was filed by the petitioners claiming the status of cultivating tenants. Therefore reference to S.29B(3) by the 3rd respondent was not necessary. But that reference, however, has no bearing on the ultimate result because the 3rd respondent proceeded on the basis that since the competent civil court has adjudged the respective rights of the parties, the application under S.29B cannot be entertained. I was referring to S.29B(3) of the Act only for the purpose of showing the scope and content of that provision. In the result, I dismiss this original petition with costs. Dismissed.