Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 198 (JK)

Ahmad Bhat v. State Of J. &K.

2002-06-10

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2002
1. One Ahad Bhat was involved in litigation with his brothers son Abdul Gani Bhat (respondent No.5). The parties entered into compromise followed by a compromise decree (Annexure PA & PB). When the decree was put in execution, petitioner brother of said Ahad Bhat contested the said execution and further this contention was negated by Dy. Commissioner, Baramulla who directed execution of the decree issued by Sub Judge, Pattan. Against the order petitioner filed a revision. However, revision petition was dismissed by Financial Commissioner (revenue) on 23.6.98 holding the impugned order of Dy. Commissioner legal and the decree executable. These two orders are under challenge in this petition on grounds taken thereto, based as they are on Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. 2. Respondents in their objections have not denied decreeing of the suit intense respondents 5 and 6 by Sub Judge Pattan. It is also not denied that the decree has been forwarded to revenue authority for execution. The impugned order of Dy. Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Annexures PC & PE) are defended as within jurisdiction and not offending the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. Besides it is stated that the writ petitioner involves disputed question of fact in as much as, the decree compromise is assailed on merits. Writ petitioner has challenged compromise and decree in question in a civil suit pending on the file of sub Judge Rattan. The suit is pending as even admitted in the writ petition. 3. The impugned orders of Dy. Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Annexures PC & PE) are in fact the orders which have been passed in execution proceedings while implementing and executing the compromise decree of the Sub Judge Court, Pattan (Annexure PB). The conclusion of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner that the decree does not contravene the provisions of law including Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, need not be commented on merits at this stage, in as much as, the civil court is already seized of the matter in a regular civil suit where the compromise and the decree are challenged by the writ petitioner. The compromise and decree is also challenged in other aspects for the most on factual plain. The dispute is raised by the otherside. The compromise and decree is also challenged in other aspects for the most on factual plain. The dispute is raised by the otherside. Obviously in writ jurisdiction High Court is not the forum for resolution of disputed/questions of fact. 4. In the above view of the matter, as writ petitioner has filed the suit wherein the very question(s) raised in this writ petition have been agitated and challenged inviting decision on the question so raised, by the court seized of the suit, therefore, in my view, petitioner cannot pursue the writ proceedings when he is already pursuing the matter in alternative suit proceedings. Where the disputed question of facts can be better/effectively, addressed to. 5. In Jai Singh Vs. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 898) the court observed: - "The high Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it involved determination of disputed questions of fact. It was also observed that the High Court should not in exercise of it its extraordinary jurisdiction grant relief to the appellant when he had an alternative remedy. After hearing Mr. Sobhagmal Jain on behalf of the appellant, we see no cogent ground to take a view different from that taken by the High Court. There cannot, in our opinion be any doubt on the point that the extent of purity of the gypsum won by the appellant is a question of fact. It has also been brought to our notice that after the dismissal of our notice and that after the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, the appellant has filed a suit, in which he has agitated the same question in which he is the subject-matter of the writ petition. In our opinion the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. 6. In result the petition is dismissed.