Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 342 (JK)

Puran Chand v. Ram Krishan

2008-09-15

SUNIL HALI

body2008
1. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the learned City Judge, Jammu seeking restraint on the appellants-defendants not to interfere with the land measuring 2 kanals 11 marlas and 1 kanal situated at khasra no. 314 and 22 min. The suit was based on the fact that plaintiff had purchased land vide two agreements to sell executed on 29.11.1984 and 11.1.1986, details of which is given herein above. Consequently the plaintiff was also put in possession of the land in question. 2. The suit was resisted by the appellants-defendants on the ground that the agreements to sell were cancelled by a subsequent deed and they have also denied that the plaintiff-respondent was ever put in possession of the property and the possession of the land is with them, which is supported by the entries recorded in revenue records. The suit was dismissed by the learned City Judge, Jammu vide order dated 30.12.1997 on merits on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish his possession on the suit property. The learned trial court also held that contract to sell was not proved by the plaintiff-respondent. 3. Thereafter, an appeal came to be filed by the plaintiff-respondent against order dated 30.12.1997 before the learned District Judge, Jammu, who allowed the same and set aside the order dated 30.12.1997 passed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.9.1999. The findings of the appellate court were clearly based on the fact that defendant No.2 had made admission regarding execution of contract to sell, as such, no further proof was required to prove the documents. The learned appellate court also found that since handing over of the possession was admitted, therefore, no further proof is required for the same. It is in these circumstances the present appeal has been filed before this court. At the time of admission of this appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed by this court for determination: - "I) Whether in view of the admitted fact that the suit is with regard to agricultural land, the suit in which the possession is disputed, could be tried by a civil court for returning a finding regarding the possession? II) Whether in view of the admission of the plaint that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of land as per agreements to sell dated 28.11.84 and 11.1.86. II) Whether in view of the admission of the plaint that he had entered into an agreement for purchase of land as per agreements to sell dated 28.11.84 and 11.1.86. Was it not necessary for the trial court to relegate the parties under Agrarian Reforms Act for holding such an enquiry as is contemplated under section 31-C of the Agrarian Reforms Act to return a finding whether the property is vested in the State or not because of the Act of the land owner.? III) Whether the suit claiming relief on the basis of agreement to sell, shall be maintainable in civil court even where the possession has been transferred in anticipation of the sale as permitted by section 138(3) of the Transfer of Property Act, in view of the Section 32 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, which specifically over-rides any provision of any other law including customs and usages? IV) Whether agreements can be relied upon to grant relief, which is prohibited under the Act; and V) Whether appreciation of evidence by the trial court was perverse?" The respondent is not present despite service. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the land in question was agricultural land. Determination of possession of the said land requires an enquiry under the Agrarian Reforms Act. This aspect of the matter has not been taken note by the Courts below. Both the courts below have assumed jurisdiction for determination of the possession with respect to the agricultural land. This aspect has been noted only by this court while framing aforesaid substantial questions of law. The questions framed by this court address the core issues which are involved in this case. The legal questions which arise are substantial questions of law framed by the court and need to be examined in the present case. 6. It is not in dispute that under Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under the Act or the rules made there-under. Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 empowers the Revenue Officer to determine all other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner. Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 empowers the Revenue Officer to determine all other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner. Conjoint reading of both the sections clearly takes away the jurisdiction of the civil court to determine the question of possession relating to the agricultural land. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff clearly raises the question of possession, which could not be decided by a civil court. 7. The Section 28-A of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 regarding prohibition on transfer of agricultural land clearly bars the owner from transferring his ownership right under the said Act. 8. From what has been stated above, the court below could not decide the suit, as there was clear bar under Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the question of possession regarding agricultural land. The matter should have been transferred to the Collector for determining these issues. 9. I, therefore, hold that the courts below have wrongly decided the question of possession regarding agricultural land. The suit is required to be dismissed or directed to be tried by the Collector, Agrarian Reforms. I, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the findings of the appellate court. Resultantly suit of the plaintiff-respondent shall also stand dismissed.