Mehraj-Ud-Din Bhat And Anr vs Mohsin Hassan And Others

Order of the court of Munsiff, Pulwama (for short hereinafter “Trial Courtâ€) dated 14.06.2018, passed in a Suit titled Mohsin Hassan and

others v. Mehraj-ud-din Wani and another, rejecting the plea of defendants/petitioners vis-Ã -vis jurisdiction of the Trial Court as being devoid of merit

and accordingly, overruled, on the grounds made mention of in civil revision petition on hand.

It is submission of learned counsel for petitioners that Trial Court lacks jurisdiction as the matter pertains to Agriculture land and the Assistant

Commissioner Revenue is competent to issue temporary injunction in the matter.

Precise facts as are discernible from perusal of file are that plaintiffs/ respondents claim that they are owners in possession of land measuring 19

kanlas and 12 marlas falling under survey No. 547 min situated at Kandizal Pulwama. It is contended by plaintiffs/respondents in their plaint that

defendants are causing interference in their landed property, so they approached the Trial Court seeking a decree for permanent injunction,

permanently restraining defendants/petitioners from causing any sort of interference in the suit land and also restraining them from dispossessing

plaintiffs from peaceful ownership, possession and enjoyment of suit land.

Defendants/petitioners caused their appearance before the Trial Court and filed their written statement.

During pendency of the suit, petitioners/defendants took a plea that suit land is an agricultural land, so the Trial Court lacks jurisdiction to try and

decide the suit. However, the said plea has been rejected by Trial Court in terms of order impugned.

Heard learned counsel of respondents and considered the record on the file as also order impugned.

The sole contention of petitioners is that the Trial Court lacks jurisdiction in view of matter pertaining to agricultural land and it is the Assistant

Commissioner, Revenue, who can adjudicate upon such matters. Given the said contention, it would be apt to have glance of J&K Agrarian Reforms

Act 1976, particularly Section 19 thereof, which for facility of reference is reproduced herein:

“Power of Revenue Officers

(1) Unless the class of Revenue officers, by whom any function is to be discharged or any power is to be exercised, is specified by or under this Act,

the Government may, by notification, determine the functions to be discharged or the powers to be exercised under this Act ay anu class of Revenue

Officers.

(2) The manner and procedure for the performance of duties, the exercise ad conferment of powers, distribution of business and withdrawal and

transfer of cases under this Act shall, save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, be regulated by the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act,

Samvat 1996 and the rules made thereunder.

(3) The following applications, suits and proceedings shall be disposed of by a Collector: -

a). Proceedings under section 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980;

b). Proceedings under sub-section (2) of section 68-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980;

(c). Proceedings under Section 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Samvat 2007;

(d).application by an owner or a intermediary that the person, who claims to be cultivating the land as a tenant, is not a tenant but a trespasser;

(e). all other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner/intermediary.

(4) Any application, suit or proceedings of the kind mentioned in sub-section (3), pending at the commencement of this Act before a Revenue Officer

subordinate to a Collector or any Civil or Revenue Court, shall be transferred to the Collector having jurisdiction in the place in which the land in

dispute is situate.

(5) Any application, suit or proceeding relating to cases specified in clause (e) of sub-section (3) which immediately before the commencement of

Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1988 were pending before any civil court, shall, on such commencement, stand transferred

to the Collector having jurisdiction over the area in which the land in dispute is situate, and the Collector shall in his capacity as the appellate or

revisional authority, as the case may be, dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of this Act.â€​

If the case in hand is analyzed on the touchstone of provisions of Section 19 of the Act, it can be safely said that the subject-matter of the suit does

not fall and come within/under the ambit of Agrarian Reforms Act. Plaintiffs/defendants claim to be owners in possession of suit land. If any person

threatens them to disturb their possession, or cause interference in their possession or try to dispossess them from the suit land, they have a right to

approach the civil court. In this regard my views are fortified by the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Jagtu Versus Badri and others

reported in 1979 SLJ (1) 6.

Relevant extract thereof is pertinent to be reproduced infra:

“As already stated all disputes relating to the possession of the land whether principally or collaterally, or incidentally involved are required to be

decided under the Act. Two cases of the same nature can, however, be distinguished. Take the case where A sues for permanent injunction in

respect of the land against B with the allegation that B without any right or reason is interfering with his possession. B raises the plea that he was the

tenant of the land and was being wrongfully dis-possessed by A and that he opts to re-occupy the land, or he disputes the right of ownership of the

plaintiff in the land. Then in that case, the suit is cognizable by the Revenue Officer. But take the case where A in peaceful and personal cultivation of

the suit land as an owner thereof is threatened by a wayfarer who has got no right in the land to dispossess him. Here the dispute does not call for any

decision under the act. The suit is cognizable by the civil court.â€​

It may be added here that the word “disputeâ€​ cannot be taken to mean and include every kind of dispute pertaining to land. Strictly speaking the

disputes mentioned in clause (a) to (d) or even a dispute in regard to adverse possession of land, are all disputes pertaining to land. Had the intention of

Legislature been to include every kind of dispute in the ambit of clause (e) then instead of enacting five clauses, it would have enacted only one clause

by simply declaring that every kind of dispute pertaining to land would be disposed of by Collector. [See: Jagtu v. Badri (supra)]. In the present case,

the plaintiffs/defendants claim that they are owners in possession of the suit land and defendants/ petitioners are causing interference and trying to

dispossess them. In the suit, it is not right to possess that needs determination, but it is form of possession which needs to be determined for granting

decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. As such, Trial court has rightly decided the question of maintainability of the suit. This Revision petition,

therefore, is held to be meritless and is dismissed accordingly.

Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.

Copy be sent down.