The main legal point established in the judgment is that S.20A of the Land Conservancy Act only bars suits by the State for eviction of persons in unauthorized occupation of Government lands and does not apply to suits by persons in occupation of Government lands for recovery of lost possession under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has come up before us on a reference by our learned brother M.P. Menon, J. on the question whether S.20A of the Land Conservancy Act excludes from its ambit suits under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act, as held by Padmanabhan, J. in Philip v. Skaria, 1987 (1) KLT 213.

2. The short facts are the following: Petitioners-plaintiffs filed O.S.No.360 of 1981 under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of 2.15 acres of poramboke land in Sy.No.748 of Pasupara Village, which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had reduced to possession since 1950. He was in enjoyment of that property since then. Revenue authorities had imposed and collected penal tax from him under the Land Conservancy Act in L.C.No.734/52. Two years prior to the institution of the suit, he had put up a shed in the suit property. He was staying 4 Kms. away therefrom. The, first defendant is the immediate neighbour on the northern side of the suit property. On 10-8-1981, first defendant forciably took possession of the property taking advantage of the absence of the original plaintiff. The second plaintiff was examined as Pw.1 and two other witnesses were also examined in support of the plaintiffs' claim. They produced Ext.Al tax receipt. Defendants produced Exts.B1 to B5 in support of their contentions.

3. Defendants in their written statement contested the claim of the plaintiffs for possession since 1950 or any right in the suit property. They also asserted that at the time when they entered possession of the property, it was vacant tharisu land belonging to Government The first defendant got patta of the property. He put up a house in the suit property which was numbered as 365A/1 of Upputhara Panchayat. They also submitted that the Special Tahsildar, Peermedu, had initiated proceedings for grant of patta in favour of the wife of the first defendant A notice under R.12 of the Land Assignment Rules was published on 31-8-1981. They also contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of S.20A of the Land Conservancy Act.

4. The trial court framed the following issues:

(i) Is the suit maintainable?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff had possession in the suit property at any time.

(iii) Whether the court fee paid is correct?

(iv) Reliefs and costs.

Issue No.3 was found in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue No.2, the trial court entered the finding that first plaintiff was in possession of plaint schedule property prior to his dispossession by defendants on 10-8-1981. On issue No.l, the court held, that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit seeking eviction of any person in unauthorised occupation of Government land. Trial court, therefore, found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the same as not maintainable. In this revision petition, the petitioners submit that the finding of the trial court on the maintainability of the suit, is bad for error of law and amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

5. It is not seriously disputed before us, that if Philip v. Skaria, 1987(l) KLT 213, has laid down the correct law, the finding in the judgment of the trial court on the entertainability of the suit is liable to be vacated. The question which we have therefore to consider is whether that decision is correct. Counsel for respondents submitted that the suit which gave rise to Philip v. Skaria (supra) was not for relief under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore the observations contained in that judgment may not apply to the present case. He submitted further that dismissal of the suit filed under S.6 of the Specific Relief Act does not preclude reliefs which may be available to the petitioners since they may file a suit otherwise than under S.6 of the Act for the same relief.

6. We understand the decision in Philip v. Skaria (supra) as laving down the proposition that in a dispute between two persons claiming possession of land belonging to another, be the lat