ISHWARAGOUDA & ORS. versus MALLIKARJUN GOWDA & ORS .

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 838 
ISHWARAGOUDA & _ORS. 
v. 
· MALLIKARJUN GOWDA & ORS . 
. (Civil Appeal No. 5878 of 2002) 
: NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961: 
s. 133 - Jurisdiction to decide as to whether a land is 
agricultural land and the person claiming its possession is 
a tenant - HELD: Vests only on Land Tribunal and no suit 
or ptoceedings in such matter shall be entertained by any 
civil court - Further, once such a question /Jas been decided 
. 0 by the Tribunal, the decision cannot be challenged before 
any civil court and if any order in the matter is passed by a 
civil court setting aside the decision of the Land Tribunal, 
· the same would be a nullity - In the instant case,· the first 
appellate court rightly held that the land Tribunal having 
decided that both the parties were entitled to occupancy rights 
E with regard to land in dispute, civil court had no jurisdiction 
to decide whether joint family or one of its members was the 
tenant - High Court in -second appeal erred in setting aside 
the judgment of'first .appellate· court -
Judgment of High 
Court set aside. 
F 
The suit land was under· cultivation of the 
predecessor-in-title of the parties. After coming into 
operation of the Karnataka La.nd Reforms Act, 1961 the 
father of the respondents filed Form No~ 7 for grant of · 
G · occupancy rights in respect of \the entire land whereas 
father' of the appellants filed Form No. 7 claiming that the 
·land was being cultivated jointly by both the families. The 
Land Tribunal held that since the· land· was being 
,cultivated jointly, both the applicants were entitled to 
H 
838 
,... 
/ 
.__ 
Jt ··--
,..ll 
ISHWARAGOUDA& ORS. v. MALLIKARJUN GOWDA & 
839 
ORS. 
occupancy rights. The High Court dismissed the writ A 
petition of the respondents, and remitted the matter to the 
Land Tribunal for demarcation. Th.e appeal filed by the 
respondents was also dismissed. Against the order of 
demarcation passed by· th_e Land Trib.unal, the 
respondents, having remained unsuccessful in the 
B 
appeal before Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal as also 
in the revision petition before the High Court, filed a suit 
for declaration of title in respect of the suit land. The suit 
was decreed by the trial court. But the first appellate court 
dismissed the suit holding that the civil court had no c 
jurisdiction in the matter. The High Court having allowed 
the second appeal filed by the respondents and directed 
the first appellate court to decide the appeal filed by the 
appellants, the latter filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. A plain reading of s.133 of the Karnataka 
Land Reforms Act, 1961 would make it clear that 
jurisdict~on to decide the question whether a particular 
land is an agricultural land, and whether the person 
claiming possession thereof is a tenant shall vest only on 
the Land Tribunal and no suit or proceeding etc. shall be 
entertained by any civil court. It would be further evident 
that even when a suit is pending on the said question, 
the civil court shall refer such dispute to be decided by 
the Tribunal for decision. Once the Land Tribunal decides 
the question, the civil court cannot have any jurisdiction 
in the matter in view of s.133 of the Act. [Para 6] [845-A-
C] 
D 
E 
F 
1.2. Furthermore, once a land tribunal decides the 
G 
question enumerated in s.133 of the Act, such decision 
of the Land Tribunal also cannot come under challenge 
before any civil court and if any order is passed by the 
civil court setting aside the decision of the Land Tribunal, 
such an order would be a nullity. If any consequential 
H 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A or.der., is also passed by the civil court, setting aside the 
decision of the Land Tribunal and directing the 
)....;.__ 
H 
c 
possession Qf land in dispute to be delivered, it must be 
held that the said ord.er was without jurisdiction and 
therefore a nullity. [Para 6] [845-0-E] 
Mu·qakappa vs~ Rudrapp·a & Ors. (1994) 2 ·sec 57, 
relied on. · · 
· 
Balawwa & Anr. vs. Hasanabi & Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 272, 
distinguished. 
1.3. In the instant case, before the Land Tribunal it 
was conclusively decided that the predecessor-in-title of 
both t~e pa_rties had taken the land in dispute for 
cultivation jointly and that they had been jointly 
cultivating the same. That being the position, and in view 
D of Section 133 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the civ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.