James L Barboza v. v Radhakrishna Hegde

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2025WP/764/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No.764/2019 (GM-CPC), NC: 2025:KHC:23956, High Court of Karnataka, decided 03.07.2025 by Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil. Maintainability of civil suit O.S.No.354/2012 (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi) challenging Land Tribunal occupancy-rights order dated 12.09.1981; bar of jurisdiction under Sections 132 and 133, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; Section 48A/Form No.7 occupancy rights application; writ of certiorari under Article 227; R. Ravindra Reddy v. H. Ramaiah Reddy, 2010 AIR SCW 1435 (para 30) followed; suit dismissed as not maintainable; Issue No.5 answered for defendant.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.08.2018 in O.S.No.354/2012 set aside; Issue No.5 held in favour of the petitioner; suit O.S.No.354/2012 dismissed as not maintainable. ¶operative-order

James L Barboza Vs v Radhakrishna Hegde — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 20.08.2018 in O.S.No.354/2012 set aside; Issue No.5 held in favour of the petitioner; suit O.S.No.354/2012 dismissed as not maintainable.

¶operative-order

Issue for consideration

Whether the civil suit O.S.No.354/2012, which seeks to declare the Land Tribunal's order dated 12.09.1981 granting occupancy rights void ab initio, is maintainable before the civil court notwithstanding the bar of jurisdiction under Sections 132 and 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶1

Court's answer

Under sub-section (2) of Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 there is an express ouster of the civil court's jurisdiction: an order of the Land Tribunal cannot be questioned or challenged in a civil (or criminal) court.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Following the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (R. Ravindra Reddy v. H. Ramaiah Reddy, 2010 AIR SCW 1435, para 30), the Trial Court committed a grave error in recording an incorrect finding that the suit challenging the Land Tribunal's order is maintainable.

¶9

Key takeaways

Preliminary Issue No.5 framed by the Trial Court is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent-plaintiff; consequently the suit O.S.No.354/2012 is not maintainable.ratio¶operative-order

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.), allowing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 20.08.2018 passed in O.S.No.354/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi: Held that sub-section (2) of Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 effects an express ouster of the civil court's jurisdiction, so an order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights (order dated 12.09.1981, proceedings No. LRY/91/166/992/TRI/3626/1981-82) cannot be challenged in a civil suit. Following the Supreme Court's enunciation in R. Ravindra Reddy v. H. Ramaiah Reddy, 2010 AIR SCW 1435 (paragraph 30), the Court held that the Trial Court committed a grave error in holding the suit maintainable, answered preliminary Issue No.5 in favour of the petitioner (defendant), set aside the impugned order, and dismissed O.S.No.354/2012 as not maintainable.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO.764/2019 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

¶8

JAMES L. BARBOZA AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE SEBASTIAN BARBOZA BARBOZA COMPOUND DADDINAGUDDE SHIRVA VILLAGE, POST SHIRVA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶9

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA U, ADV.,)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

V. RADHAKRISHNA HEGDE AGED 74 YEARS

¶13

S/O LATE V. PADMAVATHI HEGGADTHI.

¶14

V. JAYAPRAKASH HEGDE AGED 72 YERAS

¶15

S/O LATE V. PADMAVATHI HEGGADTHI.

¶16

V. MANJAYYA HEGDE AGED 66 YERAS S/O LATE V. PADMAVATHI HEGGADTHI.

¶17

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 R/AT NO.108, MANDOVI GALAXY 5TH CROSS, MISSION COMPOUND UDUPI-576 101.

¶18

GLADIS ALMEIDA AGED 55 YERAS D/O LATE VICTOR MENEZES

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RAYANA MENEZES AGED 50 YERAS S/O LATE VICTOR MENEZES.

¶23

RESPONDENTS NO.4 & 5 ARE R/AT. KADTHA MAJAL SHIRVA VILLAGE, POST SHIRVA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶24

MAGDALINE MENEZES AGED 68 YERAS D/O LATE SATHURINE MENEZES R/AT. KUDTHA MAZALU, NYARMA SHIRVA VILLAGE, POST SHIRVA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. S.K. ACHARYA, ADV.,)

¶27

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, WRIT OR DIRECTION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 20.08.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.354/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI VIDE ANNX-A AND TO DECLARE THE SUIT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN OS NO.354/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC UDUPI IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER LAW & ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This petition is filed seeking for the following relief:

¶36

"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 AnnexureA 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."

¶37

Sri.Vigneshwara U., learned counsel appearing for

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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.¹ Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by dismissing the suit.

¶43

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.

¶44

1 2010 AIR SCW 1435

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶49

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.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

by Thomas Menezes In favour of the 3rd, Defendant is void ab-initio, invalied and illegal.

¶59

D. To direct the Tahasildar Taluk Office, Udupi to delete the aforesaid S.No.468/2005 measuring 50 Cents from the order dated 12.09.1981 passed by the 10th Udupi Land Tribunal Under its proceedings No.LRY/91/166/992/TRI/3626/1981-82 and also to delete the very same property entry from the form 10 occupancy certificate issued by the Tahasildar pursuant to the aforesaid order.

¶60

E. To direct the defendants no 1 and 2 to deliver up aforesaid Partition Deed dated 29.06.1985 bearing document no.568/1985-86 of Udupi SNO, before the Sub-Registrar, Udupi, Sub-Registration District Udupi for deletion of the aforesaid property measuring 50 cents of S.No.468/5 situated in Shirva Village of Udupi Taluk, from the property schedule allotted to the share of Thomas Menezes.

¶61

F. To direct the 3rd defendant to deliver up aforesaid Will dated 29.06.1994 bearing document No.87/198495 of Udupi SRO., made by Thomas Menezes in favour of the 3rd Defendant, before the Sub-Registrar, Udupi, Sub-Registration District Udupi for cancellation.

¶62

G. To grant the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants their men, people, agents, servants and all those persons claiming through or under them from trespassing into any

¶63

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

portion of the plaint property and interfering with Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint property.

¶67

H. To order the Office to send copy of the decree to be passed in this case to the Sub-Registrar Udupi, Subregistration District, Udupi for compliance of the Decree.

¶68

I. To grant full cost of the suit.

¶69

J. To grant such other reliefs as the Court deems fit.

¶70

The aforesaid prayer clearly indicates that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is seeking declaration that the order dated 12.09.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal granting occupancy right in favour of the persons mentioned in the order, is void ab initio , invalid and illegal. In other words, the respondent-plaintiff is challenging the order of the Land Tribunal granting occupancy rights in favour of the persons referred in the order dated 12.09.1981.

¶71

It would be useful to refer the relevant provision of

¶72

law. Section 132 of the Act reads as under:

¶73

"132. Bar of jurisdiction.—

¶74

(1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

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 section 83, the Tribunal the Tahsildar, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control.

¶79

(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."

¶80

Sub-section (1) of the aforesaid Section says that 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 Officers referred in the said Section. Sub-section (2) specifically says that no order of, the Officers referred therein shall be questioned in any civil or criminal Court. Sub-section (2) of Section 132 makes it abundantly clear that the order of the Land Tribunal cannot be challenged in the Civil Court. There is an express ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court when it comes to the challenge of the order of the Land Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶81

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

the case of R.RAVINDRA REDDY, referred supra, at

¶85

paragraph 30 held as under:

¶86

"30. It is clear from the above that the jurisdiction of the Civil or Criminal Court or Officer or Authority stood ousted in matters where a decision had to be taken as to whether the land in question was agricultural land or not and whether the person claiming to be in possession is or is not a tenant of the said land from prior to 1st April, 1974. In the instant case, the question as to whether Annaiah Reddy was an occupancy tenant or not and whether Pilla Reddy had given his consent to such claim is in the domain of the Land Tribunal and it has been correctly held by the Courts below that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide such a question."

¶87

Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the law on the point, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in recording an incorrect finding that the suit is maintainable.

¶88

For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following:

¶89

10 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:23956 W.P. No.764/2019

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

ORDER

¶93

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶94

(ii) The impugned order dated 20.08.2018 passed in O.S.No.354/2012 by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, is set aside. Issue No.5 framed by the Trial Court is held in favour of the petitioner

¶95

and against the respondent-plaintiff.

¶96

Consequently, the suit in O.S.No.354/2012 is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶97

Sd/ - (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶98

¶99

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

James L Barboza v. v Radhakrishna Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James L Barboza v. v Radhakrishna Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aster Mims Hospital Vs Nava Kerala News

Sri. N. M. Shivaramu Vs Smt. T.R. Ramya

Manjappashetty Vs Smt Sarvamangalamma

D Purushothama Reddy Vs the Sonnappanahalli Gram Panchayath

Sri M Nagappa Vs Sri Y S Eshwara Setty

Sri. Yogananda @ Ananda Shetty Vs Sri. Kantharaj