Sheel Kumar and Another vs Prem Singh and Another

Bilal Nazki, J.—The respondent No.-l plaintiff filed a suit before the trial Court of Sub-Judge, Jammu, seeking declaration to the effect that

sale deed executed on 12-1-1989 between the defendants be declared null and void. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 submitted that he was an

occupancy tenant of a plot of land comprised under Khasra No. 1747 measuring 14'x 18' situate at village Khoud, Tehsil Akhnoor. The suit was

contested by the present petitioner/defendant and issues were framed by the trial Court. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was ""whether

the suit is not triable by this Court because of operation of Agrarian Reforms Act? OPD. The trial Court decided this issue in favour of the

plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and held that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not ousted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It will be profitable to reproduce certain provisions of the Agrarian

Reforms Act.

Section 19 lays down the powers of Revenue Officers.

Sub-clause (3) of Section 19 lays down as under:

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

(a) proceedings unnder Section 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980;

(b) proceedings under Sub-section (2) of Section 68A of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, Samvat 1980;

(c) proceedings u/s 24 of the Jammu and Kashmir Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, Samvat 2007;

(d) application by an owner or an 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.

This section lays down that proceedings under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-A and proceedings u/s 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy

Act shall be initiated before the Collector. The case of the petitioner herein is that since the plaintiff has based his suit on his alleged rights of being

an occupancy tenant in terms of the J. & K. Tenancy Act, if he had any grievance, he had to approach the Collector. In order to appreciate the

argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to examine as to what are the matters which are triable by a Collector falling u/s 68-A

of Tenancy Act. Sub-clause (2) of Section 68-A of the J. & K. Tenancy Act provides that any transfer of right of protected tenancy in respect of

land, shall be null and void, which would mean that transfer of right of protected tenancy made by a protected tenant would be null and void, and

the rights of such a person in the land would forfeit. The case of the plaintiff/ respondent No. 1 was that he was an occupancy tenant of a particular

piece of land which had been sold by a third person by way of a sale deed. Therefore, there is nothing in Section 68A which would suggest that

the plaintiff/ respondent No. I had any remedy u/s 68A of the Tenancy Act. Similarly, all proceedings u/s 56 of the J. & K. Tenancy Act have to

be taken before the Collector. Section 56 lays down that if any tenant is ejected otherwise than in due course of law, he may file an application to

the Revenue Officer for his reinstatement on the land within six months of such ejectment. At first sight it appears that by virtue of this provision of

law, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain the present suit was ousted. But when one looks to the definition ofland under J. & K. Tenancy

Act, it becomes clear that land which is occupied as the site of any building in a town or village is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tenancy

Act. Almost similar is the definition of land in the Agrarian Reforms Act. Both the said Acts apply to land excluding such land which is used as site

of a building or a structure within municipal area, town area, notified area or village abadi or any land appurtenant to such building or structure. The

sale deed which is on the file and has been challenged before the trial Court shows that it is a small piece of land measuring 14' x 18' which has

been sold for construction of a house. It is also shown in the sale deed that the said piece of land is surrounded by the houses of different people

and is not definitely land for which the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred. If it is accepted, as is suggested by learned counsel for the petitioner

that the land in question was an agrarian land, then he could not have purchased it by virtue of the impugned sale. deed. When the land was

purchased and sold, the plea was taken that the land was not agrarian, and when the suit is defended, the plea is taken that land was agrarian. I

have carefully gone through the order of the learned trial Court. He has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendant/petitioner has failed to

establish ""that the land was agrarian"". Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred.

For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.