Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 37 (JK)

Karan Singh v. Ranjit Singh

2014-02-04

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2014
1. By medium of this Revision Petition, judgment dated 30th May, 2012 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kathua has been assailed. 2. Respondents, referred to hereinafter `the Plaintiffs' have filed suit for permanent Prohibitory injunction regarding land measuring 19 kanals 9 marlas covered by Survey No. 298 of village Keerian Tehsil and District Kathua, wherein they claimed to be the owner in possession of land on the strength of agreement to sell dated 26.05.1997 executed by Chain Singh and Karan Singh, the owners of the land. The plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the said land for the last 12 years but their possession is being invaded by the petitioners, hereinafter referred to as `the defendants'. 3. Issue No. 1 as framed pertaining to jurisdiction has been decided by the trial Court by holding that the suit land being agricultural land, dispute arising out of it pertaining to possession has to be decided by the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act. On such premise, has concluded that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Plaint has been directed to be returned to the plaintiffs so as to approach the competent Agrarian authorities. 4. The said judgment dated 20th July, 2010 passed by learned Sub Judge, Kathua has been assailed by medium of Appeal titled Ranjit Singh and anr. v. Karan Singh and ors. before the Court of District Judge, Kathua. Learned District Judge allowed the appeal on the ground that the suit land does not fall within the definition of the `land' under the Agrarian Reforms Act, as the suit land is a `Gair Mumkin Dariya' reserved to land owners under the provisions of Big Landed Estates Abolition Act and falls within the ambit of exception carved out under Section 3 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. 5. Learned Appellate Court has rightly concluded that the suit land does not fall within the definition of `land' as defined under Section 2 (9) of the Agrarian Reforms Act which provides that "land means land which was occupied, or was let, for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture in Kharief 1971 and includes-strictures on such land used for purpose connected with agriculture..". 6. Abstract of Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi placed on records would reveal that the nature of the land is recorded as "Gair Mumkin Dariya". 6. Abstract of Khasra Girdawari and Jamabandi placed on records would reveal that the nature of the land is recorded as "Gair Mumkin Dariya". However, in the year 1997, under the orders of Naib Tehsildar, kind of land is shown tohave been changed as `agricultural' in possession of the plaintiffs. Prior to 1997, land is recorded as "Gair Mumkin Dariya". 7. The year 1971 is the crucial date for determining the position of land as defined under Section 2(9) of the Agrarian Reforms Act. Therefore, when land is not covered by the definition on the crucial date of 1971, even up to 19997, the dispute arising out of such cannot be termed to be the dispute arising under the Agrarian Reforms Act. 8. Sections 19 (3) (e) and 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act read together would provide that all disputes pertaining to the land arising under the Act or Rules shall not be decided by the Civil Court. Dispute, vis-a- vis, the suit property pertains to the land, which, in any manner, has not given rise to the dispute or questions for determination arising under the Act or Rules made thereunder. 9. Learned Appellate Court after proper appreciation of Rules, factual position has passed justified order. Thus, no irregularity or abuse of the process of law is noticed which would call for interference by invoking the powers under Section 115 CPC. 10. Revision Petition being without merit is dismissed. Copy of the order be sent to the Appellate Court as well as the Trial Court along with respective records forthwith.