Madhaba Sahu vs Raghunath Chhotara and Others

N.K. Das, J.—Opposite party No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed O.S. No. 49 of 1973 in the Court of the Munsif, Khurda for declaration that neither Petitioner (Defendant No. 2), nor Defendants 1 and 3 were bhag tenants under him in respect of the suit land. The plea of the Defendants was that they were bhag tenants in respect of the land since the time of their ancestors. An application was filed by Defendant No. 2 stating that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court, inasmuch as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties could not be decided by civil Court and also he had filed a case before the revenue Court u/s 15(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and prayed that the civil suit be stayed till the final decision of the case under the Orissa Land Reforms Act.

The learned; Munsif has rejected the said petition on the ground that amendment (d) of Section 15(1) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act was introduced after the suit was filed and the same having no retrospective effect, the suit is to proceed. As against this order the present revision has been filed.

The learned Munsif has placed reliance on Katikara Chintamani Dora and Others Vs. Guntreddi Annamanaidu and Others, , wherein it has been held that when the substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action, rights of the parties are decided according to law, as it existed when the action was begun unless the new. Statute shows a clear intention to vary such rights. In other words, in the absence of anything in the Act, to say that it is to have retrospective operation, it cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law applicable to a claim in litigation at the time when the Act is passed.

There is no dispute about the fact that amendment (d) of Section 15(1) came into operation during the pendency of the civil suit. This amendment runs as follows:

15(1) Any claim for recovery of arrears of rent by a landlord and any dispute between a landlord and his raiyat or tenant, as the case may be, as regards-

(a), (b) and (c) xx xx xx xx

(d) the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant; shall be decided by the Revenue Officer on an application to be filed in the prescribed manner by any party interested;

xx xx xx xx

A proviso has also been added which runs as follows:

Provided further that in the case of any dispute referred to in Clause (b) and (d) which had arisen prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Second Amendment) Act, 1975, an application in respect thereof may, if not filed earlier, be filed within one year from the said date.

According to the learned Munsif, as there is no specific provision in Section 15 as to proceedings pending before the civil Court, the suit can proceed and this amendment will not be a bar.

Section 67 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act runs a follows:

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding so far as it relates to any matter which any officer or other competent authority is empowered by or under this Act to decide:

According to the provisions of this section, the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding which comes within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court for decision.

In the present suit, it is admitted that Defendant No. 2 had already filed a petition before the Revenue Court u/s 15(1)(d) read with the proviso appended to that section. A question, therefore, arises whether the civil suit should be stayed when the dispute between the parties as to relationship of landlord and tenant is pending before the Revenue Court.

Under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, there is such a bar u/s 39. According to that section, the civil Court cannot entertain a suit relating to matters which are or have already been the subject matter of any application before the Revenue Court, which are covered by Chapters II to VI of that Act. A case under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act where such a question arose, came up for consideration in Debraj Tuli v. Sm. Bimala Nepak 1973 (1) C.W.R. 670. In that case it has been held:

Though the language of Section 39 is perspective in operation and it prohibits institution of a suit in the civil Court in respect of any matter which is or has already been the subject of any application made or proceeding taken under Chapters II to VI of the Act, nevertheless the civil suit instituted prior to any such application made or proceeding taken not to continue after initiation of proceedings under Chapters II to VI of the Act in respect of the subject matter of those proceedings but is to be stayed until those proceedings under the Act have terminated finally and then to dispose of the civil suit in accordance with the findings of those proceedings. The object of Section 39 of the Act, is obviously to confer exclusive jurisdiction on ita tutory authorities created therein for determination of matters covered by Chapter II to VI of that Act and to confer finality on the findings arrived at in the proceedings under those chapters and to make those findings on the civil Court.

The dispute between the parties had not come to an end when the law conferred rights on parties to get the question of controversy decided by the Revenue Court and in pursuance of that, Defendant No. 2 has already filed a petition before the Revenue Court which is pending for decision. In view of these circumstances, the principle laid down in Katikara Chintamani Dora and Others Vs. Guntreddi Annamanaidu and Others, , has no application to the present case. There cannot be any controversy about the position that unless the amendment in law is made retrospective, it cannot affect the previous rights of the parties. But in the present case, not only the amendment was introduced to Section 15(1), but also it extended the time of one year conferring rights on tenant to make such claim in the Revenue Court, if he had not raised such a claim prior to amendment and in pursuance of that, Defendant No. 2 has already preferred the claim before the Revenue Court.

Though not directly, yet to some extent, the case of Bhima Padhi v. Venkateswar Swamy Varu 33 (1967) C.L.T. 177, is of some assistance to the circumstances of the present case. That case related to the provisions under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act of 1955. According to the provisions of that Act, jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted if the conclusion depending on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant is raised or pending in the Revenue Court. It has been held therein that the dispute before the Collector might precede the civil suit or subsequent to the institution of the suit before the determination of the land and in that case the civil suit or operation would be stayed until determination of the dispute by the Collector. If the Collector decides that there is relationship of landlord and tenant, the decision would be binding on the civil Court and the jurisdiction of the civil Court would be ousted and the suit would be dismissed:

The legislature has conferred special jurisdiction on the Revenue Court to decide questions as to relationship of landlord and tenant and while such a question was pending before the civil Court, the Orissa Land Reforms Act was amended conferring jurisdiction on the Revenue Court to decide the question of such relationship, and in pursuance of that, one of the parties in the civil suit has already filed a petition raising the same question relating to same property between the same parties in the Revenue Court. Considering the principles laid down above by this Court, it should be appropriate on the part of the civil Court to stay the civil suit and allow the parties to agitate their rights in the Revenue Court and after a decision in the Revenue Court, the civil suit is to be decided in the light of that decision. In view of the aforesaid findings, the order of the learned Munsif is not sustainable.

In the result, the civil revision is allowed and the order dated 11-9-1975 is set aside. O.S. No. 49 of 1973(1) in the file of the Munsif, Khurda be stayed till the final disposal of O.L.R. Case No. 266 of 1975 in the Court of the Revenue Officer, Khurda. As there is no appearance for the other side, there will be no order as to costs.

Revision allowed.