The main legal point established in the judgment is the lack of jurisdiction of the assistant commissioner to grant a lease after the repeal of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

S. VENKATARAMAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the second defendant in o. s. No. 203 of 1967 on the file of the i additional munsiff, kumta, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned civil judge, karwar, in r. a. 94 of 1973 dismissing his appeal.

( 2 ) CERTAIN undisputed facts are as hereunder: one sayyed idrus sayyed ali khazi, the original plaintiff in the suit, was the owner of survey No. 21 of haritha village in kumta taluk. Then the government assumed the management of this land by order dated 26-3-1951 under Section 65 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short 'bt and AL act') on the ground that it was lying fallow. The tahsildar, kumta was appointed as manager and he leased the land in favour of the second defendant (present appellant) for a period of 10 years from 7-4-1951. The tahsildar declined to extend the lease period beyond 31-3-1961 and he directed the second defendant to handover possession to the owner. In an appeal filed by the second defendant the assistant commissioner set aside the order of the tahsildar and continued the lease in favour of the second appellant for a further period of 5 years from 31-3-1961. Though the plaintiff challenged that order before the revenue appellate tribunal the revision was rejected by the tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction. The plaintiff issued a notice under Section 80, CPC to the deputy commissioner questioning the validity of the order of extension of lease and demanding that he should be put in possession of the land. However, after the expiry of that period of 5 years the assistant commissioner passed another order on 31-12-1966 renewing the lease for further period of 10 years from 1966-67. The plaintiff then filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the order of the assistant commissioner dated 31-12-1966 was void and without jurisdiction and for possession of the suit land along with mesne profits.

( 3 ) THE state government which was the first defendant contested the suit and denied that the order of the assistant commissioner was illegal. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable in the civil court, that it is barred under the Provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land act, that unless there was termination of the management the plaintiff was not entitled to seek for possession of the land. It was also contended that the suit was bad for non-issue of notice under Section 80, CPC.

( 4 ) THE second defendant also contested the suit and asserted that there was no relationship between him and the plaintiff and that he was entitled to continue as a tenant so long as the management was subsisting and that he was not liable to deliver possession of the suit land.

( 5 ) THE trial court held that the order of the assistant commissioner extending the lease for a period of 10 years from 1966-67 was without jurisdiction as by that date Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land act had been repealed and there was no corresponding provision in the Land Reforms Act under which he could continue the lease. He further held that the plaintiff was entitled to get back possession of his land and that the suit was maintainable. The court also held that there was no need for the plaintiff to issue a fresh notice under Section 80, cpg apart from the one which he had earlier issued. On these findings he granted the decree for declaration and possession of the suit land.

( 6 ) THE government did not challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court. However, second defendant challenged that judgment and decree before the learned civil judge who concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.

( 7 ) THIS appeal has been admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:"1. Whether the assistant commissioner had jurisdiction to grant further lease for 10 years even after the repeal of B. T. and A. L. act after coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 196

Click Here to Read the rest of this document