( 1 ) IN all these petitions the question crops up once again whether the proceedings in a suit should be stayed under Sec. 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (`the Act' for short) when a plea is taken by a party litigant that he is a tenant of the land in question even though the court in the said suit is not called upon to decide any of the issues that are barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Sec. 133.

( 2 ) IN C. R. P. 2950/00, C. R. P. 2533/02 and C. R. P. 1248/03 the defendants have challenged the impugned orders of the court-below refusing to stay the proceedings in suits filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction.

( 3 ) IN C. R. P. 1779/03 and C. R. P. 4809/01 the challenge is to the order of the court-below refusing to stay the proceedings in suits filed by plaintiffs for possession of the suit property.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides in all these petitions.

( 5 ) SOME of the counsel appearing for the parties drew attention to the fact that similar matter in C. R. P. 3852/2000 and C. R. P. 3877/2000 have been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this court and these matters also may be referred to the Division Bench for decision. But having heard these revisions for some time I find that in the light of the decision in THOMAS ANTONY vs VARKEY VARKEY, (2000) 1 SCC 35 touching the point in issue in these revision, there is no need for referring these revisions to a Division Bench for determination. The learned Single Judge thought it fit to refer the matter to a Division Bench in the light of the conflicting views expressed in two decisions of this court viz. , in MALLAYYA v. PUTTAPPA, 1976 (1) Kar. L. J. 369 and B. V. SUBBACHARI v. B. K. JOYAPPA, I. L. R. 1994 KAR, 2505 touching the questions in issue. But the very issue having been dealt with and determined by the Apex Court in the case of Thomas Anthony, supra, I do not find it necessary to refer these revisions also to the Division Bench for decision.

( 6 ) SEC. 132 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in certain matters. The bar as enunciated in Sec. 132 is as follows:"132. Bar of jurisdiction.- (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority under Sec. 83 the Tribunal, the Tahsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 7 ) CERTAIN questions which are required to be exclusively decided by the Tribunal are stipulated in Sec. 133 of the Act. These questions are:"133. Suits, proceedings, etc. , involving questions required to be decided by the Tribunal.- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force,-- (i) no civil or criminal court or officer or authority shall, in any suit, case or proceedings concerning a land decide the question whether such land is or not agricultural land and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st March, 1974;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "the bar is only against deciding the questions (i) whether land is or is not agricultural land and (ii) whether person claiming to be in possession of land is or is not tenant. The question that arises for consideration in these petitions is whether the civil court should refuse to proceed with the suit filed for bare injunction or for possession on the ground that the defendant is claiming occupancy rights before the Tribunal. The jurisdiction to decide a suit filed for permanent injunction or for possession, without doubt, vests in the civil court. Such a dispute cannot be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal or any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document