Civil courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate matters directly addressed under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as specified in sections 132 and 133.

ORDER :

(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.)

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief :

"Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction by setting aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2018 passed in O.S.No.354/2012 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi vide Annexure- A and to declare the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.354/2012 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi is not maintainable under law."

2. Sri.Vigneshwara U., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration that the order dated 12.09.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, in favour of the petitioner is illegal, not binding and for other prayers. In the said suit, the petitioner filed a written statement raising a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit. The Trial Court framed the issues, considered issue No.5 as the preliminary issue and held against the petitioner by recording an incorrect finding that the mother of the petitioner did not file any application for grant of occupancy rights as provided under Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') within the stipulated time. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction and such order can be challenged in the suit. It is submitted that the decision of the Trial Court on issue No.5 runs contrary to Sections 132 and 133 of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.RAVINDRA REDDY AND ORS. Vs. H. RAMAIAH REDDY AND ORS. , [2010 AIR SCW 1435] Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by dismissing the suit.

3. Per contra, Sri.S.K.Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the impugned order of the Trial Court and submits that the Trial Court, by a well reasoned order has come to conclusion that the suit is maintainable by recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to place before the Court that the petitioner's mother has filed Form No.7 seeking for occupancy rights before the Tribunal and that the order of the Tribunal is without jurisdiction, null and void. Hence, the issue No.5 was held against the petitioner. He seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on both sides.

5. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.S.No.354/2012.

It would be useful to extract the prayer sought in the said suit.

A. To grant declaratory decree declaring that, the Order dated 12 .09.1981 passed by No. 10. Udupi land tribunal Under its proceedings No. LRY/91/166/992/TRI/3626/1981-82 in favour of 1. Victor Menezes, 2. Thomas Menezes, 3. Megdaline Menezes is void ab-intio, invalid illegal in so far as it relates to portion measuring 50 cents of S.No 468/5 situated in Shirva Village of Udupi Taluk.

B. To grant the consequential relief of declaratory decree declaring that, inclusion of a portion measuring 50 cents of S.No. 468/05 situated in Shirva Village of Udupi Taluk, in the Partition Deed dated 29.06.1985 bearing document No.568/1985-86 of Udupi SRO, is void ab-initio, invalid and illegal.

C. To grant the Consequential relief of declaratory decree declaring that the Will dated 29.06.1994 bearing document No.07/1994-95 of Udupi SRO, made by Thomas Menezes In favour of the 3rd, Defendant is void ab-initio, invalied and illegal.

D. To direct the Tahasildar Taluk Office, U