1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8916 OF 2022

(Arising out of SLP (C) 16022/2022

SEETHAPPA

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

K.T. VENKATAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at

Bengaluru in RSA No. 2301 of 2006, by which the High Court has

allowed the said Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff and has

remanded the matter to the learned trial Court to decide the suit

on merits after reversing the findings recorded by the courts below

that the suit was barred under Section 132(2) of the Karnataka Land

Reforms Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the original defendants

have preferred the present appeal.

The issue involved in the present appeal lies in a very narrow

compass.

The issue/question posed for consideration of this Court is

whether for the reliefs prayed in the suit, the suit before the

Civil Court would be entertainable in view of the bar contained

under Section 132(2) of the Act? While considering the aforesaid

Digitally signed by R

Natarajan

Date: 2022.12.02

17:05:34 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

issue, the reliefs which are sought in the suit are required to be

referred to which are as under:-

“a) Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a decree

declaring the occupancy right granted to suit

schedule lands to the first defendant in LRF No.

2862/75-76 by the Land Tribunal behind one’s

power as null and void and is not binding on the

plaintiff.

b)

And the first defendant without any kind of

right or possession or ownership is trying daily

to tresspass into plaintiff’s lands and to

plant/trees to create unauthorisedly some kind of

interest in his favour. Therefore, in the

interest of justice first defendant (to be

restrained)

their

servants,

agents,

representatives to be restrained by permanent

mandatory injunction from attempting to tresspass

into plaintiff’s lands.

c)

Plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to issue a mandatory

injunction restraining first defendant from

trespassing into plaintiff’s land and also grant

all suitable orders to protect plaintiff’s right

and direct first defendant to pay plaintiff the

cost of this suit, this Hon’ble Court may deem

fit to grant in the circumstances of this case

and in the ends of justice and equity.”

Therefore, the main relief which is sought is to pass a decree

declaring the occupancy right granted to the suit schedule lands to

the first defendant in LRF No. 2862/75-76 by the Land Tribunal,

vide order dated 22.09.1997.

The other reliefs are for

consequential reliefs. Considering 132(2) of the Act, the suit

would be barred before the Civil Court. Section 132 of the Act

reads as under:-

“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

3

the Deputy Commissioner, an officer authorised

under sub-section (1) of section 77, the

Assistant Commissioner, the prescribed authority

under section 83, the Tribunal, the Tahsildar,

the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or the State

Government in exercise of their powers of

control.

(2) No order of the Deputy Commissioner, an

officer authorised under sub-section (1) of

section 77, the Assistant Commissioner, the

prescribed authority under section 83, the

Tribunal, the Tahsildar, the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal, or the State Government made under this

Act shall be questioned in any civil or criminal

court.”

In that view of the matter, as such, the learned trial Court

was right in dismissing the suit on raising the preliminary issue

on maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court.