S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioners-plaintiffs challenge in this revision, the Order of the civil judge, srirangapatna dated 22nd of april, 1995 in o. s. No. 29 of 1991, making a reference to the land tribunal the additional issue No. 1 (a) for its adjudication on the claim of tenancy by the respondent- defendant in the suit. ( 2 ) THE parties are referred to according to their array in the trial court. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs sought declaration of title to the plaint schedule property and possession of the same from the defendant. ( 4 ) THE defendant set up a plea that her husband hongaiah was tenant of the land from a time prior to 1-3-1974 and on his demise, the tenancy rights have devolved on her. ( 5 ) ON such a plea being raised, the learned civil judge raised issue No. 1 (a) casting the burden of proof that hongaiah, the husband of the defendant was a tenant of the property and thereafter the defendant became a tenant. By virtue of Section 133 of the Karnataka land reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter called the act) the learned civil judge made the reference of issue No. 1 (a) to the land tribunal now impugned before us. ( 6 ) THE learned civil judge before whom the matter was argued opined that the observations made in M. Narayanappa v Hemavathi , relating to situations after 1-3-1974 pertaining to tenancy could not be adjudicated by the land tribunal, did not appear to lay down the law correctly and required reconsideration by a larger bench. That is how, this revision is before us. ( 7 ) IN m. Narayanappa's case, supra, the following observation is made :the correctness of this observation is doubted by the learned single judge. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the claim of tenancy of the defendant is sought to be disputed on the ground that on and with effect from 1-3-1974, all tenancy rights stood abolished by the operation of Section 44 of the act. The husband of the defendant has not sought conferment of occupancy rights by making an application in form No. 7 within time allowed by law (30-6-1979) and therefore, the defendant or her husband could not raise a plea of tenancy as their right, if any, of securing occupancy rights stood extinguished. The husband of the defendant has not sought conferment of occupancy rights by making an application in form No. 7 within time allowed by law (30-6-1979) and therefore, the defendant or her husband could not raise a plea of tenancy as their right, if any, of securing occupancy rights stood extinguished. Even according to the defendant, her claim of tenancy as the widow of the deceased hongaiah cannot be entertained by reason of the extinguishment of the alleged right of tenancy by her not claiming occupancy rights within the time limited by law. It was, therefore, contended that the learned civil judge ought to have taken note of this circumstance and refused to make a reference to the land tribunal as tenancy rights, if any, of the defendant was extinguished as laid down in narayanappa's case. ( 9 ) THE exclusiveness of jurisdiction of the land tribunal to deal with claims of tenancy as on 1-3-1974 came up for consideration in Saraswathi Shedthi v Appanna Maistry and another. His lordship Mr. Justice venkataramiah (as he then was) has made the following observations atit is clear from the above observations that the jurisdiction of the land tribunal to deal with a claim of tenancy is exclusive and the civil court would have no jurisdiction to decide the question relating to tenancy as stipulated under Section 133 of the act. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the decision reported in Shidlingappa Mallappa and another v Dhondappa Shidlingappa , in support of his contention that before a reference is made under Section 133 of the act, the civil court is not precluded from initially examining the question as to whether prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant existed. The above observation was made in the context of the case on hand where the court found as a fact that the defendants had taken a stand in the earlier proceedings that they were not tenants. Consequently, the decision essentially was on facts and no proposition of law was laid down that in each case, the court must be prima facie satisfied of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant before a reference is made under Section 133 of the act. The decision in shidlingappa's case, supra, in the circumstances, is of no help to the revision petitioner. The decision in shidlingappa's case, supra, in the circumstances, is of no help to the revision petitioner. The land tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether person is a tenant or not and that jurisdiction is exclusive. The question of determining the existence of prima facie case for reference under Section 133 of the ACT does not arise. ( 11 ) IN Sakrappa v State of Karnataka, the question as to the effect of non-filing a form No. 7 within the time limited by law, the liability for eviction of such a tenant by the government and competence of land tribunal to make a declaration that the tenanted land shall vest in the government came up for consideration. It has been held in this case that by virtue of Section 44 of the act, all tenanted land vest absolutely in the state government and is not affected by failure of a tenant to make an application in form No. 7 for conferment of occupancy rights. ( 12 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section 45 of the ACT specifically provides that the land held by a person before the date of vesting in respect of which he is not entitled to be registered as an occupant under this Section shall be disposed of in the manner provided in Section 77 of the ACT after evicting such a person. The fact that the defendant has lost her right to secure occupancy rights in accordance with Section 45 of the ACT would not render the reference infructuous inasmuch as the finding as to whether the land was tenanted or not on 1-3-1974 would assume importance in determining plaintiffs right to seek possession of the land in question. When once the land vest in the government under Section 44 of the act, on a finding that it was a tenanted land on 1-3-1974, all rights in respect of that land stand wiped out and the rights of the parties in relation to the land would be determined in accordance with the provisions of the act. In the circumstances, determination of the dispute covered by issue No. 1 (a) should nevertheless be done by the land tribunal being vested with exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue. In the circumstances, determination of the dispute covered by issue No. 1 (a) should nevertheless be done by the land tribunal being vested with exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issue. In our opinion, the decision in sakrappa's case, referred to above explains the correct legal position' and the observation to the contrary in paras 20 and 21 of the decision in narayanappa's case referred to above should be regarded as not laying down the law correctly and is over ruled. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances, the revision is without merit and is dismissed. --- *** --- .