Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 179 (JK)

Raghubir Singh v. Joginder Singh

2012-04-20

Sanjay Gupta

body2012
1. This revision petition is directed against the order passed by Custodian dated 11.11.2009, by virtue of which Court has held that, as the matter is sub judice before the Hon'ble High Court, so he can not take cognizance with respect to revisions filed by petitioner against the order of Asst. Custodian Jammu dated 24.7.1983. 2. Petitioners have challenged the order on the grounds that, they are allottee of land under Kh.No. 132 situated at Thanger Tehsil Jammu. That original allotment was made on the name of Dhool Singh and petitioners succeeded to the property. That they are in possession of the land on spot. That allotment of land has not been cancelled by Asst. Custodian or Custodian Jammu. That respondent no.1 is not allottee of land, as no form A was filed by respondent No. 1. That respondent no. 1 got attested mutation u/s 3A of agrarian Reform Act and sold the land to respondent no. 2 That mutation u/s 3 (a) of Act was set aside by Commissioner Agrarian Reforms Jammu but Member Special Tribunal Jammu set aside the order of Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu. That matter at present is sub judice before Hon'ble High Court. 3. That petitioner came to know about the frivolous order from Khasra girdawari of 1983 and produced it before Commissioner Agr. Reforms Jammu, who did not relied upon that. That petitioner moved an application to Tehsildar for getting copy of order dt. 24.7.83, but it was reported that there is no file allotment is traceable. That petitioner also applied before PRO for getting copy of form `A' and other document with concern to allotment. That Dy. PRO told that there is no form "A" of Joginder Singh and even he is not recorded in register cancellation of 1970. That Joginder Singh has not been given any allotment. 4. That petitioner filed a petition u/s 30 (4) before Custodian to set aside frivolous order dt. 24.7.83. That Custodian passed the impugned order and held that, he cannot take cognizance, as matter is sub-judice before honorable High court. 5. Heard the counsels and perused the records. 6. Perusal of records reveals that, petitioner preferred a revision against the order dt. 24.7.83 passed by Asst. Custodian on the grounds that, order is ex party. That Tehsildar Asstt. Custodian has no power in 1983. 5. Heard the counsels and perused the records. 6. Perusal of records reveals that, petitioner preferred a revision against the order dt. 24.7.83 passed by Asst. Custodian on the grounds that, order is ex party. That Tehsildar Asstt. Custodian has no power in 1983. That Patwari has made a frivolous entry in revenue records in 1987. That Court below after hearing the parties passed the impugned order. The concluding Para reads as under:- 7. I have gone through the record of the case besides weighed the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties. It is an established fact that allottee has failed to produce copy of form (Alif) and allotment order issued by the competent authority which could have sustained whether he was in deficiency or not as such the matter requires to be enquired into, thoroughly. On the other hand a petition in respect of the said case is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, no cognizance in the matter can be taken at this stage. Accordingly I am constrained by circumstances not to adjudicate upon the matter and disposed off case accordingly. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspects of matter. 9. Honorable High court of a state is court of record. It has administrative as well appellant, Revisional and constitutionally higher and supervisory jurisdiction, over all the courts in state. Every order or judgment pronounced by high court, become law, which all subordinate courts and quasi-judicial authorities in state, have to follow in letter and spirit, It is always obligatory on behalf of subordinate court and quasi-judicial authorities in state, not to pass any order or take cognizance of a matter; subject of which is already sub judice before honorable High court. It amounts to contempt, if cognizance is taken. In present case, it is pleading of petitioner that, matter pertaining to subject matter in dispute, is pending before honorable high court. 10. So order of court below is legally correct. There is no illegality or incorrectness in order impugned.. 11. In view of what has been discussed the order impugned does not suffer from any legal defect. This revision accordingly is dismissed. Record of court below is sent back along with order. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.