Bua Ditta vs Ananti

This revision petition is directed against the order dated March 27,1995 passed by the learned Munsiff Hiranagar whereby in the pending

execution proceedings of the decree dated: 10091987 he perpetually restrained the petitioner not to interfere in the possession of the land

described in that decree. The decree was for permanent injunction directing the defendant (petitioner herein) not to interfere in the possession of

the respondent regarding the land measuring 4 kanals 3 marlas comprising of khasra No. 73 of village Ragliu Chack Teh. Hiranagar.

The factual matrix of the case is that Santu was the tiller of the above stated land in the year kharif, 1971 and after coming into force the J and K

Agrarian Reforms Act, proprietary rights of the land were vested in the State. U/S 4 of the said Act, Santu became the prospective owner. Before

proprietary rights could be conferred u/s 8 of the said Act, he expired and thereafter Mutation No. 203 u/s 8 of the said Act was attested in favour

of the petitioner Bua Ditta and Giano (husband of respondent) as well as Smt. Sita Devi and Smt. ShivDevi. Bua Ditta and Giano v. e his sons and

Smt. Sita Devi and Smt. Shiv Devi were his daughters. Total land is 4 kanals and 3 marlas. It is pleaded that petitioner herein possessed two

kanals and two marlas of land whereas remaining two kanals and one marla of land to be possessed by the respondent. Respondent Smt.

AnantiDevi filed a suit for permanent injunction and obtained decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein and his son not to

interfere in the land comprising of 4 kanals 3 marlas. This decree dated: 10091987 was put to execution and the impugned order was passed.

Before the executing court a specific plea was taken that this decree was not executable in view of the mandatory provisions of the J and K

Agrarian Reforms Act, but the executing court did not address itself to this significant aspect of the case and held that the executing court cannot go

beyond the decree even if the decree was a nullity or passed against the mandatory provisions of law. According to the executing court, these

matters do not fall under the ambit of section 550 CPC.

The order has been challenged on the ground that it is fallacious and perverse and has caused miscarriage o justice. It is pleaded that there is no

section 550 on the statute book of CPC and the finding of the executing court that it cannot go beyond the decree even if it is a nullity is also not in

accordance with law. There is legal force in the submissions being made by the learned counsel as there is no section 550 in the Civil Procedure

Code and it is settled law that the executing court can go beyond the decree to see whether it is a nullity or not and in case the decree is a nullity, it

cannot be executed. The J and K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 came into force on July 13, 1978 and the judgment and decree in question was

passed on Sept. 10,1987 Section 19 of the said Act contains subclause (E) which provides that all other cases of dispute including these where the

parties in possession plead adverse possession against the recorded owner/intermediary are also triable by the Collector as defined under the Act.

Section 25 creates a bar of jurisdiction of civil courts and specifically states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle the dispute or deal

with any question or to determine any important question arising under the said Act, or the rules made thereunder. No order of any officer or

authority passed under the Act or the rules made thereunder can be called in question in any civil court. Since in the present case a dispute

regarding the possession had arisen so the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass any decree and such a dispute was to be settled by the Revenue

Officer as defined in the Act. The decree thus was passed without jurisdiction and was a nullity from its inception. The impugned order cannot

stand in the eye of law and is setaside The record of court below be returned.