SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/382542 |
Subject | Civil |
Court | Karnataka High Court |
Decided On | Jan-10-1996 |
Case Number | R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991 |
Judge | Eswara Prasad, J. |
Reported in | ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495 |
Acts | Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 49 and 63; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 9 |
Appellant | Ramajois |
Respondent | Chief Secretary |
Appellant Advocate | M.S. Gopal, Adv. |
Respondent Advocate | R.K. Hatti, HCGP |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";
if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]karnataka land revenue act, 1964 (karnataka act no. 12 of 1964) - sections 49 & 63 - order by tahsildar appeal under section 49(a) - jurisdiction of civil courts : express bar under section 63 unless all remedies under act exhausted within limitation - section 9 cpc not applicable. ; the order in question having been issued by the tahsildar who is a revenue officer subordinate to the assistant commissioner, an appeal lies under clause (a) of section 49. the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the state government on account of any act or omission of the state government or any revenue officer is barred under section 63 of the act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";
if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]ordereswara prasad, j.1. the suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned munsiff, thirthahalli in o.s.no. 108/1984 on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction. the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the additional civil judge, shimoga in r.a.no. 28/1986.2. the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the civil suit was maintainable. he further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the.....Code Context}
//highest occurence of word in the judgement
echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]ORDERCode Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Eswara Prasad, J.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');
}
echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Ramajois Vs Chief Secretary - Citation 382542 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '382542', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/62024/karnataka-land-revenue-act-1964-complete-act">Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964</a> - Sections 49 and 63; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908</a> - Sections 9', 'appealno' => 'R.S.A. No. 1 of 1991', 'appellant' => 'Ramajois', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Ramajois Vs. Chief Secretary', 'casenote' => ' KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1964) - Sections 49 & 63 - Order by Tahsildar appeal under Section 49(a) - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts : express bar under Section 63 unless all remedies under Act exhausted within limitation - Section 9 CPC not applicable. ; The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act, unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding, he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force, within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit, unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of CPC will not come to the aid of the appellant. ;(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (Central Act No. 5 of 1908) - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court : express bar under Section 63 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 -- Sections 15(1)(b) & 23 & High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, Clause (v) of Rule 5; [Dr.K. Bhakthavatsala, J] Whether the consent of the Advocate General is mandatory to initiate proceedings for criminal contempt of subordinate courts? Held, As per Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act in the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by any other person, with a written consent of the Advocate General. The High Court of Karnataka, in the exercise of powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Act, and all other powers enabling in that behalf, to regulate the proceedings for contempt of itself or of a Court subordinate to it has made rules viz., the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981. As per Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Contempt Rules, the complainant shall state whether he has obtained the consent of the Advocate General and if so, produce the same. It further says that nothing shall preclude the High Court from taking action suo motu on the basis of the information disclosed. Under Section 15(1)(b), it is for the competent court to take action for contempt of court not only on a motion being made by the Advocate General, but also on a motion made by any person with or without the consent in writing of the Advocate General. Therefore, obtaining consent of the Advocate General to initiate criminal contempt proceedings is not mandatory. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'M.S. Gopal, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'R.K. Hatti, HCGP', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1996-01-10', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'Eswara Prasad, J.', 'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.</p><p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.</p><p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.</p><p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.</p><p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.</p><p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.</p><p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.</p><p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.</p><p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p></p><p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => 'ILR1996KAR715; 1996(1)KarLJ495', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Chief Secretary', 'sub' => 'Civil', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $args = array( (int) 0 => '382542', (int) 1 => 'ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/382542/ramajois-vs-chief-secretary' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>Eswara Prasad, J.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The suit filed by the appellant for declaration that the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 4.7.1984 is illegal and void and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thirthahalli in O.S.No. 108/1984 on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga in R.A.No. 28/1986.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not served with any notice prior to the order of eviction passed by the second respondent and hence the Civil Suit was maintainable. He further contends that the questions involved in the suit were mixed questions of law and fact and therefore the issue relating to jurisdiction of the Court ought not have been decided as a preliminary issue.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The appellant claims to be in long possession in Survey No. 21 of Kavaledurga village and he applied for grant of the land in his favour. The order dated 4.7.84 was issued and it was alleged that under a mahazar drawn on 5.7.84, the appellant was dispossessed. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Munsiff. The Suit was dismissed holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction inasmuch as the right of appeal against the order dated 4.7.1984 was available to the appellant and without the appellant exhausting the remedy, the suit cannot be maintained.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. According to the respondents a show cause notice dated 4.6.1984 under Section 94 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 ('the Act' for short), was issued to the appellant and the Revenue Inspector was directed on 4.7.1984 to evict the appellant and that he was accordingly evicted under a mahazar dated 5.7.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that no such notice was served on the respondent and that he was not in fact evicted from the land in question.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. Under Section 49 of the Act, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made under the Act.', (int) 6 => '<p>Under Clause (a), an appeal lies to the Assistant Commissioner if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer subordinate to him. The order in question having been issued by the Tahsildar who is a Revenue Officer subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner an appeal lies under Clause (a) of Section 49. The jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain any suit or other proceeding against the State Government on account of any Act or omission of the State Government or any Revenue Officer is barred under Section 63 of the Act unless the plaintiff first proves that prior to the institution of the suit or other proceeding he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force within the period of limitation. Section 63 is an express bar to the filing of a suit unless the plaintiff has exhausted the remedies provided under the Act by filing an appeal. When there is an express bar in the Act, Section 9 of C.P.C. will not come to the aid of the appellant. The appellant ought to have filed an appeal against the order in question.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that appellant was under the bonafide impression that a suit can be filed inasmuch as the appellant was not served with any notice of the proposed eviction and therefore the impugned action was opposed to the principles of Natural Justice. The contention of the learned Counsel on this aspect appears to be tenable. The appellant must have been under a bonafide impression that he can pursue his remedy by filing a suit. In the circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the appellant should be permitted to file an appeal against the impugned action of the respondent. Inasmuch as the appellant was under the bonafide impression and was pursuing the remedy by filing a Civil Suit he is permitted to file an appeal within 4 weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period of 4 weeks, the same shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority and shall be disposed of in accordance with law, without reference to the question of limitation. The opinions expressed by the Courts below or this Court on the various contentions raised by the appellant will not be taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority in disposing the appeal.', (int) 8 => '<p>7. Pending disposal of the appeal this Court passed an Interim Order on 7.1.1991 and the said Order shall continue to be in force for a period of eight weeks from today, to enable the appellant to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority. Furnish a copy of this order within 10 days. Appeal is accordingly disposed.<p>', (int) 9 => '<p>' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109