The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in any dispute relating to land possessed by any tribal in a notified tribal area, as per Rule 5 of the Tribal Areas Rules, 1359 F.

P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE short question which arises in these Revision petitions is whether a suit lor declaration of title with respect to immovable property situated in a tribal area against tribals and non-tribals can be maintained in a civil Court.

( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. There are four items of land situated in the village of Jataila which is one of the tribal areas. The plaintiff sought a declaration of title and a perpetual injunction in respect of those lands. It is alleged by her that the suit lands belonged to the ancestor of defendants 1 and 2 and that he sold them to her husband. She further alleged that defendants 1 and 2 arid their followers, defendants 8 to 15, are attempting to dispossess her, defendants 8 to 15 are tribals. It is contended by them that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court in view of the provisions of the Tribal Areas Regulation of F. 1359. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendants 1 to 7 arc residents of non-tribal areas and that the civil Court has jurisdiction in respect of those defendants, and that since the cause of action is one and indivisible, the suit against tribals is also within the cognizance of the civil Court. The Tribal Areas Regulation of 1359 F. , was enacted for the better administration of the tribal areas in the former Hyderabad State. The expression "tribal" has been defined as meaning a member of a tribe in a notified tribal area and a "non-tribal" as meaning a person who is not a tribal. Section 4 of the Regulation confers on the Government the power to make rules. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that the rules may provide for among other matters, barring the jurisdiction of Courts of law or revenue authorities in any dispute relating to lands, houses or house-sites occupied, claimed, rented or possessed by any tribal,qr from which any tribal may have been evicted, whether by process of law or otherwise.

( 3 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tribal Areas Regulation, notified Tribal Areas Rules of 1359 F. , were enacted. Rule 5 thereof provides;"no Court of law or revenue authority shall have any jurisdiction in any Notified Tribal Area in any dispute relating to land, house or house site occupied, claimed, rented or possessed by any tribal, or from which any tribal may have been evicted whether by process of law or otherwise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ".

( 4 ) IN the present case, defendants 8 to 15 claim that they are in possession of the items in dispute. Therefore, their case is clearly covered by Rule 5. Rule 5 is of wide amplitude. It not only bars the jurisdiction of a civil Court with respect to land possessed by any tribal, but also with regard to any house or house- site claimed by a tribal. That being the case, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is certainly barred. So much is conceded.

( 5 ) BUT it is argued that since the cause of action is one and indivisible and since the relief in the suit is claimed not only against tribals. but also against non- tribals, the jurisdiction of the civil Courtis not ousted. As supporting this contention, Mr. Raghuvir, learned counsel for the respondents, has relied upon the decision of Mr. Justice Wadsworth in Ammanna v. Raja Reddi. There the learned Judge on a construction of Section 5 of the Madras Agency Tracts interest and Land Transfer Act (I of 1917) held that that Section did not abrogate the ordinary powers of a civil Court to try suits relating to property within its jurisdiction. Section 5 reads:"notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, every suit against a member of a hill tribe instituted after the commencement of this Act shall be instituted only in the Courts the Agency tracts. "

( 6 ) BEFORE the learned Judge it was conceded that the dipendants were members of a notified hill tribe and ordinarily resided in the agency. The learnd Judge concluded that there was no indication in the Act of any intention to co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document