Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 93 (JK)

Santokh Chand v. Special Tribunal, J&K

2007-06-04

J.P.SINGH

body2007
1. The dispute between the parties pertains to land measuring one kanal 5 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 807/661 situated at Village Thill Tehsil Udhampur. 2. A mutation under Section 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reform Act, 1976 was recorded by Assistant Commissioner, Udhampur in favour of the petitioner for the land measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas. Tehsildar Settlement, Udhampur, accordingly vide mutation No. 512 under Section 8 of the Act, declared the petitioner, owner of the land. These mutations were set aside by the Appellate Authority on the appeal of the respondents, remanding the case to Tehsildar Udhampur who had attested the mutation in favour of the respondents. Appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Tehsildar dated 2.11.1996 was dismissed as barred by time. The Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal, dismissed the revision of the petitioner holding that an area measuring 1 kanal 5 marlas stood recorded in the possession of the respondents till 1984 when the correction of entry was made by the Patwari under the orders of Assistant Commissioner (R), Udhampur who had made an entry which was impermissible because the Patwari did not have any jurisdiction to change the existing entry of the respondents. The Tribunal did not find any point of law or of public importance involved in the revision petition. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Subordinate Revenue Authorities, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking annulment of the impugned orders. 4. Mr. V. R. Wazir, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders passed by the Subordinate Revenue Authorities had not taken into consideration the effect of a compromise decree which had been passed by Sub-Judge, Udhampur in Civil Suit No. 85 of 1994 on 5.12.1997 in terms whereof, the respondents had been restrained from interfering into 9 marlas of land which they had reportedly stated to be in possession of the petitioner. Mr. Wazir did not raise any serious sustainable plea as to the concurrent findings recorded by the two Revenue Authorities which had found the respondents to be in possession of the land. 5. Mr. R. S. Pathania, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. Mr. Wazir did not raise any serious sustainable plea as to the concurrent findings recorded by the two Revenue Authorities which had found the respondents to be in possession of the land. 5. Mr. R. S. Pathania, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the petitioners plea that the orders of the Revenue Authorities were not sustainable in view of the decree of the Civil court, was untenable because the decree passed by the Civil court was without jurisdiction and could not have affected the rights of the parties which w ere determined under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. He referred to Section 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act to support his submission that the decree obtained by the petitioner was without jurisdiction. 6. In order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Pathania, reference needs to be had to Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 which reads thus;- "5. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force-- (a) no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under this Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) no order of any officer or authority passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be called in question in any Civil Court." 7. Perusal of the suit filed by Santokh Chand petitioner against the respondents reveals that it was a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his possession over 1 kanal 5 marlas of land comprised in Khasra No.870/661. The petitioner had claimed possession over this land on the basis of mutation Nos. 428 and 512. It appears that after the setting aside of mutation attested in favour of the petitioner under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act and an adverse decision by the Tehsildar on remand of the case, he had filed suit in the Court of Sub-Judge, Udhampur seeking a Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the respondents projecting his possession over the land. He had simultaneously filed an appeal before the Revenue Authorities. The petitioner, therefore, appears to have moved two Forums seeking the same relief asserting his possession over the land in question. 8. He had simultaneously filed an appeal before the Revenue Authorities. The petitioner, therefore, appears to have moved two Forums seeking the same relief asserting his possession over the land in question. 8. The authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act have concurrently found him disentitled to the possession of land in question holding that the possession was that of the respondents and it had been recorded so even in the year 1971. Learned Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur, exercising powers of the Commissioner under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, had himself visited the spot in presence of the villagers and the Revenue Staff and had found the respondents rather than the petitioner in possession of the land. 9. The petitioner, having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act had filed to get relief in his favour as the authorities had not found him entitled to possess the land under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. His revision before the final Revenue Authority i.e. Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal too had failed. Provisions of Section 25 (a) and (b) are thus attracted to the facts of this case because a Civil Court would not have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which had arisen under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act and Rules made thereunder. Any compromise entered into by the parties before the civil court was thus inconsequential because the civil court did not possess jurisdiction o give effect thereto in view of the concluded findings of the authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act disentitling the petitioner to the possession of the land in question. 10. I, therefore, find force in the submission of Mr. Pathania that the decree of the Civil court would not affect the adjudication of the Revenue Authorities in the matter and the orders passed by the Special Tribunal and other Revenue Authorities subordinate thereto. For all what has been said above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.