The Civil Court has the jurisdiction to decide the applicability of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act to the subject-matter of the suit.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the plaintiff in OS. 217 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Coondapur, S. K. , raises the question whether the issue relating to the applicability of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act), has to be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the Act or by the Civil Court.

( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way : The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a tiled house bearing No. 1-93 of Koteshwar Panchayat and situated in sy. No. 243/4 classified in the revenue records as Tunja' of the extent of 27 cents. The plaintiff's case was that his predecessor-in-interest had leased the suit property by a karar d/. 4-4-1966, under which the defendant took the building for his business, agreeing to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 9. The plaintiff who purchased the property under a sale deed d/. 30-3-1970 after issue of a registered notice brought the suit for possession, arrears of rent and future mesne profits.

( 3 ) THE defendant contended, inter aha, that he is a Chalgeni tenant of the entire Sy No. 243/4 of the extent of 27 cents and the lease was for agricultural purposes and that as an agricultural tenant, he is entitled to the protection of the Act. It is not relevant to refer to the other contentions of the defendant. The learned Munsiff framed the following issues among others:-" (i) Whether the defendant is a tenant within the meaning of the karnataka Land Reforms Act? (ii) Whether the suit land is not a land as defined under the Karnataka land Reforms Act? (iii) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the issue relating to tenancy?

( 4 ) THE learned Munsiff heard arguments on issues (ii) and (iii) and held that whether the suit property is a 'land' as defined under the Act, is matter incidental to the determination of the question of tenancy under the Act and since the question of tenancy under the Act can be decided only by the Tribunal constituted under the Act, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the issue whether the Act applies to the lease in question. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the above revision petition. The plaintiff's case, as already stated, is that it is a lease of a building for business purposes. If the object of the lease is as alleged by the plaintiff, then the Act has no application. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is a creature of the statute, depends on the determination of the jurisdictional question whether the lease is one of land as defined in S. 2 (A), (18) of the Act. 'land' has been defined under S. 2 (A) (18) of the Act thus:" 'land' means agricultural land, that is to say, land which is used or capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient! thereto and includes horticultural land, forest land, garden and pasture land, plantation and tope but does not include housesite or land used exclusively for non-agricultural purposes. "

( 5 ) THE preamble of the Act states the scope and purpose of the Act. It states that it is an enactment for making a uniform law in the State of Karnataka relating to agrarian relations, conferment of ownership on tenants, ceiling on land holdings and for certain other matters appearing therein. The Act deals with agrarian relations and ceiling on land holdings besides other incidental matters. The Act is not intended to apply to all lands in the state of Karnataka. It is common knowledge that the Dist of S. Kanara from which this case comes, formed part of the State of Madras where there was no classification of lands as agricultural and non-agricultural. There was no provision in that State requiring the owners of land to obtain conversion for non-agricultural purposes, after payment of what is called ' Conversion fine'. In the erstwhile State of Mysore and in the Bombay and Hyderabad areas which came to this State, there were Revenue Laws which classified lands as agricultural and non-agricultural, and before agricultural lands couuld

Click Here to Read the rest of this document