( 1 ) PETITIONERS 3 and 4 in the above writ petition are the landlords of a porton of land in S. No. 160 of Santhemavathur village, Kunigal Taluk. The 2nd respondent instituted proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Kunigal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that he was a tenant of the land referred to above and was therefore entitled to be registered as its occupant. The proceedings before the Tribunal are still pending. On 30-4-1975, respondent 2 made an application before the Tribunal requesting it to pass an interim order directing the landlords not to interfere with his possession of the land in question pending disposal of the proceedings. On the basis of the said application, the Tribunal proceeded to make an order on the same day without notice to the landlords directing them not to interfere with the possession of respondent 2. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the writ petition.

( 2 ) SRI B. K. Ramachandra Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the order impugned in this writ petition was one passed without jurisdiction. He submitted that in the absence of any statututory provision expressly conferring power on the Tribunal to issue an interim order of injunction, it was not open to the Tribunal to exercise such power relying upon the provisions of S. 113 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules framed thereunder. S. 113 provides that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall be applicable in respect of all applications and proceedings under this Act before the Court.

( 3 ) RULE 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, states that the tribunal shall in respect of applications made to it follow the same procedure as specified for a summary enquiry under S. 34 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 subject to the condition that the records of the proceedings shall be maintained in a language understood by all its members.

( 4 ) S. 113 refers to the proceedings before the Court. The expression 'court' is defined in S. 2 (9a) of the Act as the Court of Munsiff within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situate. S. 113 does not apply to the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. So no reliance can be placed by the 2nd respondent on the above provision. Even granting for purposes of argument that S. 113 is applicable, it cannot be said that power to pass interlocutory orders such as temporary injunction, attachment, arrest or appointment of Receiver, pending disposal of proceedings which is found in S. 94 of the CPC, is conferred on the Tribunal in the absence of any express provision in that behalf because those powers cannot be considered as incidental steps for making of final order by the Tribunal. The duties of the Tribunal are set cut in S. 112 (B) of the Act. They are: (a) to make necessary verification or hold an enquiry and pass orders in cases relating to registration of a tenant as occupant under S. 48a; (b) to decide whether a person is tenant or not; (c) to grant surplus land under S. 77 ; and (d) to perform such other duties and functions as are imposed on the tribunal under the provisions of the Act or under any rule made thereunder.

( 5 ) IT is difficult to agree with the submission made on behalf oi respondent 2 that in order to discharge the duties assigned to the Tribunal it is necessary that the Tribunal should be clothed with powers enumerated in S. 94 CPC. The above view receives support from the decision of a Divn Bench of this court on Molle alias Medda v. Mys RTA. For the same reason it has to be held that Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974, does no empower the Tribunal to pass an interlocutory order in the nature of temporary injunction restraining any of the parties from entering upon the land which is the subje

Click Here to Read the rest of this document