K. R. PRASADA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the district appellate authority, belgaum, dated 5-3-1990 in appeal No. Ralr. 122 of 1988 confirming the order passed by the land tribunal, belgaum, dated 12-5-1988 in case No. Majagaon. Sr. 201.

( 2 ) ONE appayya, father of the present revision petitioners 2 to 4 and husband of first revision petitioner, filed form No. 7 under Section 48-a, dated 20-12-1974 under the Provisions of the Karnataka land reforms art. , 1961 (in short 'the act') before the land tribunal, belgaum, claiming occupancy rights in respect of majagaon old sy. No. 721, new sy. No. 315 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas and old sy. No. 722 and new sy. No. 316 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas. Respondent 3-the owner of the said lands contested the said proceedings denying that the said appayya was cultivating the above said lands as a tenant. The land tribunal, after holding an enquiry came to the conclusion that appayya was not cultivating the above said lands as a tenant by the notified date and rejected the said claim made by him. The appellate authority also dismissed the appeal filed by the legal representatives of appayya, who are the revision petitioners herein, confirming the order of the land tribunal, by the impugned order dated 5-3-1990. The appellate authority has taken into consideration the fact that appayya, who filed form No. 7, has given up his claim of tenancy under the terms of compromise recorded in the suit o. s. No. 425 of 1956, on the file of court of civil judge (jr. Dn.), belgaum, filed by respondent 3 herein for permanent injunction and admitted that respondent 3 herein was in exclusive possession of the said lands by the date of compromise decree and agreed to cultivate the lands for the next five years as "servant" of respondent 3 and came to the conclusion that appayya was not in possession of the above said lands as a tenant by the notified date and that he continued in possession of the said lands subsequent to the date of compromise as a licensee. incidentally, the appellate authority also found that the entries in the r. t. c. extracts for the year 1973-74 and earlier years do not disclose the name of appayya as the person in possession and cultivation of the above said lands and that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that he paid "guthige" in respect of the above said lands either to respondent. 3 herein or to his father.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri h. r. anantha krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, Sri r. u. goulay, learned counsel appearing for respondent 3 and learned high court government pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners has vehemently argued that the land tribunal as well as the appellate authority erred in relying upon the compromise decree passed in the suit o. s. No. 425 of 1956 in coming to the conclusion that possession of appayya in respect of the above said lands by the notified date was that of a licensee but not that of a tenant and that the said compromise decree is null and void since the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue relating to tenancy. It is also pointed out by him that since the issue relating to tenancy raised by appayya in that suit has been referred to "mamlatdar" without awaiting for the decision on that issue, the civil court had no jurisdiction to dispose of the suit by accepting the compromise petition filed by the parties in that suit. It is also pointed by him that under the Provisions of Section 70 of Bombay tenancy and agricultural lands Act, 1948 only mamlatdar has to decide the question of tenancy and the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the said question as is clarified by the Provisions of Section 85 of the act. It is further pointed out by him that when once an issue relating to tenancy has been referred to mamlatdar for determination, the civil court shall stay the further pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document