Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Gulzar Begum And Another vs Raja Begum And Others on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Serial No. 2
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
RSA No. 2/2025
CM No. 1144/2025, 1391/2025, 717/2025
Gulzar Begum and another .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate.
vs
Raja Begum and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
04.04.2025
ORAL
1. Through the medium of present appeal, the appellants have challenged
judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Ramban whereby the appeal against judgment dated
30.08.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Ramban has been upheld
and the suit filed by the appellants against the respondents/defendants
has been dismissed.
2. It appears that the appellants/plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a
declaration that they are the owners in possession of land measuring
10 Kanals 18 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 74/7, 78/8, 76/7 and
that they are owners in possession of land measuring 8 Kanals falling
under Khasra No. 126/49/1 situated at Village Bandhan, Tehsil Gool,
District Ramban.
3. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that the suit land has devolved upon
them from their ancestors but the defendants, who are strangers to the
2 RSA No. 2/2025
property in question, with an intention to grab the said property firstly
entered their name in the revenue record and thereafter they took over
the possession of the land measuring 10 Kanal 18 Marlas falling under
Khasra No. 74/7, 78/8 and 76/7. They also got the mutation in respect
of the said land attested in their favour.
4. Regarding land measuring 8 Kanals falling under Khasra No.
126/49/1, it has been submitted that the same was in possession of the
plaintiffs, but from the last six months, the defendants started
interfering in the said land and did not allow the plaintiffs to enter into
the said land. It has been submitted that the defendants are now hell-
bent to raise construction over the said portion of the land as well. It
has been submitted that initially defendants were not in physical
possession of whole of the property, but they in connivance with the
Revenue Authorities entered their name into the possession column of
revenue record and that they have illegally occupied the residential
house constructed by father of the plaintiffs upon the land in question.
5. It was further case of the plaintiffs that they have challenged the
mutation orders passed in favour of the defendants before the
additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban and the same have been set
aside but despite this, the defendants are not handing over the
possession of the land to the plaintiffs. It has been further submitted
that the husband of defendant No. 1 had filed a suit for adverse
possession before the court of learned Sub-Judge, Ramban, but the
same was dismissed by the court in terms of order dated 16.09.2015.
6. According to the plaintiffs they are the real owners of the suit land and
that the defendants have no right or title over the said land. The
3 RSA No. 2/2025
plaintiffs have further submitted that the defendants are land grabbers
and that they are not allowing the plaintiffs to enter into the land,
which falls in their share. The plaintiffs have submitted that they are
entitled to a direction upon defendants to hand over the possession of
the land with a further direction that they shall not alienate or raise
construction over the said land.
7. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiffs have sought a decree
that they should be declared owners in possession of land measuring
10 Kanals 18 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 74/7, 78/8 and 76/7 and
that they should be declared as owners of land measuring 8 Kanal
falling under Khasra No. 126/49/1 i.e. total measuring 18 Kanal 18
Marlas situated at village Bandhan, Tehsil Gool and District Ramban
with a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to hand over the
possession of land measuring 8 Kanals in Khasra No. 126/49/1 to the
plaintiffs/appellants.
8. It seems that the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC before the learned Sub-Judge, Ramban (Trial Court) seeking
rejection of the plaint primarily on the ground that the suit is barred in
terms of Section 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. Learned trial
court vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2022 upheld the contention
of the defendants and rejected the plaint holding that the suit is barred
in terms of provisions under Section 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms
Act. The aforesaid judgment of the trial court came to be challenged
by the appellants/plaintiffs by way of appeal before the learned
District Judge, Ramban, who vide impugned order dated 08.12.2024
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs
4 RSA No. 2/2025
9. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment passed by the
1st Appellate Court as also the judgment of the learned trial court on
the grounds that both the courts below have not appreciated the
controversy in its proper perspective. It has been contended that the
courts below have not followed the procedure prescribed under law
while passing the impugned orders.
10. Vide CM No. 1144/2025, the appellants have placed on record
proposed questions of law formulated, which read as under:
i. “Whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to get suit for
declaration declaring the plaintiff as owner in possession
of land measuring 10 Kanals 10 Marlas falling under
Khasra No. 74/7, 78/8, 76/7 and suit for mandatory
injunction directing the defendants to handover the
possession of the land falling under Khasra No. 126/49/1
measuring 08 Kanals falling under share of plaintiff
situated at Village Bandhan, Tehsil Gook, District
Ramban?
ii. Whether the suit is barred under the Agrarian Reform Act
1976 and Agrarian Reforms Rule 1977 more particularly
Sections 19 and 25 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976?
iii. Whether the suit land is not falling under the definition of
Section 2(9) of Agrarian Reforms Act?
iv. Whether the suit of the plaintiff falls within the ambit of
Section 42 of Agrarian Reforms Act?
v. Whether the suit of the plaintiff falls within the ambit of
Section 9 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1977?
11. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and perused
record of the case including the impugned judgments passed by the
learned trial court and the 1st Appellate Court.
5 RSA No. 2/2025
12. The issue involved in this case is as to whether the subject matter of
the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court is cognizable by a
Revenue Officer and as such barred in terms of Section 25 of the J&K
Agrarian Reforms Act and if not whether this appeal raises any
substantial question of law for its determination.
13. In order to find an answer to the aforesaid question, it would be
appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Section 25 of the
J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, which read as under:
25. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force
(a) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide
or deal with any question or to determine any matter
arising under this Act or the rules made thereunder;
and
(b) No order of any officer or authority passed under this
Act or the rules made thereunder shall be called in
question in any Civil Court.
14. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that a Civil Court
does not have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or
to determine any matter arising under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act
or the rules made thereunder and further that an order made by an
authority under the said Act cannot be called in question before a civil
court.
15. So far as powers of Revenue Officers under the J&K Agrarian
Reforms Act are concerned, the same have been laid down in Section
19 of the said Act, which reads as under:
19. Powers 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
6 RSA No. 2/2025Government may, by notification, determine the
functions to be discharged or the powers to be
exercised under this Act by any class of Revenue
Officers.
(2) The manner and procedure for the performance of
duties, the exercise and 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 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.]
[Clause (e) substitution by Act No. IV of 1989,
section 4.]
(4) Any application, suit or proceeding 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 the
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
7 RSA No. 2/2025
may be, dispose of the same in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.]
16. From perusal of the Sub-Section (3) quoted above, it is clear that suits
and proceedings which are cognizable by a Collector include the
proceedings under Section 56 of the J&K Tenancy Act, Svt. 1980,
proceedings under Sub-Section (2) of Section 68A of the J&K
Tenancy Act, Svt. 1980, proceedings under Section 24 of the J&K Big
Landed Estates Abolition Act, Svt. 2007, 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 and all other cases of
dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse
possession against the recorded owner/intermediary.
17. Sub-sections (4) and (5) quoted above provide that any proceeding in
respect of the aforesaid matters that were pending before the Civil
Court or Revenue Court would stand transferred to the Collector
having jurisdiction, meaning thereby that the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court in respect of a matter specified in Sub-Section (3) quoted above,
even if the same does not fall within the category of cases specified in
Section 25 of the Act, would be impliedly barred.
18. A Full Bench of this Court has, in case titled as Jagtu and others Vs.
Badri and others reported in 2010 (8) JKJ[HC] 177 interpreted the
provisions contained in Section 19(3) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms
Act. It would be profitable to reproduce the observations of the Full
Bench contained in Paras 28 to 30 of the judgment, which read as
under:-
8 RSA No. 2/2025
“28. It is not disputed that the categories of cases
envisaged from (a) to (d) are precisely those in which
disputes relating to possession are involved. The words
“other cases of dispute are of wide amplitude and must
cover all cases in which right to possess the land is claimed
or disputed. These words must receive the ordinary
meaning as having reference to all such other disputes of
possession relating to land. These words can have no
application to disputes of mere title and succession. The
words “all other” are significant and are to be read in the
background of the scheme of the Act as also sub-clauses (a)
to (d). These sub-clauses also refer to questions of
possession of land either claimed or disputed under
different Acts and which were heretofore cognizable by the
Revenue courts. Therefore where in a suit or proceedings
right to possession is claimed or disputed, it is referable to
the officer or the authority appointed under the Act and the
civil court is debarred from settling such a dispute. This
interpretation of the expression receives support from the
language used in the latter portion of clause (e) according
to which “all other cases of dispute” include those cases as
well where the plea of adverse possession is set up in a suit
by the adverse party. This dispute which was otherwise
triable by the civil court heretofore is now referable to the
Collector. The word “including force and postulates that
all other disputes fall under its ambit. The expression is
only enumerative and illustrative but not exhaustive. In my
view as the scheme of the Act goes no suit for possession
can be conceived where the dispute is not either principally
collaterally, or incidentally referable to the Act of 1976 as
the final adjudication is to be made by the authority
consistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder.
There is no warrant for the view that the “dispute”
envisaged by sub-cl. (e) are those as arise under the Act. If
that were the intention of the legislature then it would
definitely have added those words as it has done under
Section clause, it has manifested its clear intention by
9 RSA No. 2/2025
bringing all other cases of disputes which may arise under
different Acts under the jurisdiction of the new forum
created under Section 19. Section 19 (3) (e) is an extension
on Section 25 (a) enlarging its scope and extent
29. I, however, do not subscribe to the view enunciated by
some of the learned Advocates that the words “all other
cases of dispute” should be construed in limited sense so as
to mean only those disputes as have semblance to disputes
enumerated in categories (a) to (d) of sub-clause (3).
Clause (e) cannot be read ejusdem generis with clauses (a)
to (d) in that sense. There cannot be any common nexus
between clauses (a) to (d) and (e). By using the word
“including” in clause (e) legislature has intended that the
principle of ejusdem generis be not made applicable to
cases of dispute as are envisaged in sub- clauses (a) to (d).
As already stated the word “including” has an extending
force. It is not exhaustive and is not intended to aim at
limiting the meaning of the expression
30. It needs to be appreciated that in suits or proceedings
involving claim to possession, questions will fall for
determination as regards the capacity of a party to get
possession of the land under the Act of 1976 and question
will be one determinable under the Act of 1976. A question
may be raised before a civil court in a suit for possession
that because of the imposition of ceiling area or because of
the fact that the land has vested in the State or it has vested
in the tiller or for some other reason, the party is debarred
to get possession. Now these questions cannot be decided
or settled by the civil court as they affect the very relief
sought by the plaintiff and are required to be dealt with
under the Act by the appropriate authority. In that view of
the matter, all such suits pending in courts are required to
be transferred to the Collector as they cannot be tried by
the civil court Take a case where a suit for possession is
brought by A against B on the basis of possessory title. B
raises the plea that A already holds the land up to the
ceiling limit and, therefore, he cannot be granted decree
10 RSA No. 2/2025
for possession in the suit, as it would defeat the very
purpose of the Act, as the granting of the relief, would
exceed the ceiling in his case, or B may plead that he is the
tiller of the land and may become prospective owner of the
land under the Act. As suit is therefore, misconceived. Now
these questions cannot be decided by a civil court. Again,
take the case of the plaintiff who in exercise of right of
prior purchase claims the suit land on the ground that he is
the tenant. The defendant vendee denies that the plaintiff is
the tenant of the land AS the matter required to be decided
under the Act, therefore the suit shall have to be decided by
the appropriate authority and not by the civil court. Again,
take a case where a suit is brought for specific
performance of contract in respect of land, The plaintiff
relies on the contract for sale. The defendant raises the
plea that the contract for sale was made in violation of the
Act of 1976, and, therefore, no decree for specific
performance of contract can be granted in favour of the
plaintiff or that the granting of the coercive process against
the defendants to execute the sale deed would enable the
Plaintiff to have the land in excess of the ceiling area Or
take the case where the plaintiff a co-sharer out of
possession brings suit for right of prior purchase against
his other co-sharers, the vendees, Here again the same
questions will arise for determination which are
determinable by the au- thority under the Act. It is not,
however, possible to deal exhaustively with all conceivable
cases, only the principle is enunciated.”
19. From the foregoing analysis of law on the subject, it is clear that the
forum created under Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act is vested
with jurisdiction to decide not only the disputes which arise under the
J&K Agrarian Reforms Act but the said forum has also jurisdiction to
decide all other cases of disputes which may fall under the categories
mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of the Sub-Section (3) of Section 19
11 RSA No. 2/2025
quoted above. It is also clear that where in a suit right to possession is
claimed or disputed, it is referable to the officer or the authority
appointed under the Agrarian Reforms Act and the Civil Court is
debarred from settling such a dispute.
20. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the appellants/plaintiffs have
clearly admitted in the plaint that they are out of possession of the suit
land. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiffs at some places
have claimed that they are in possession of 8 Kanals of land under
Khasra No. 126/49/1, which is part of the suit land but thereafter they
have clearly pleaded that the respondents have prevented them from
entering the said portion of the suit land meaning thereby even the said
portion of the land in question is in possession of the defendants. In
Para (12) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have clearly admitted that the
defendants are not allowing them to enter upon the suit property and in
Para (14) they have admitted that cause of action in their favour lastly
arose on 18.03.2022 when the defendants did not allow the plaintiffs
to enter into the suit property. Thus, there is clear cut admission on the
part of the plaintiffs that they are out of possession of the suit property.
21. The land which is the subject matter of the suit falls within the
definition of “land” as contained in Section 2(9) of the J&K Agrarian
Reforms Act, therefore, the provisions contained in Section 19 and
Section 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act do apply to the subject
matter of the suit.
22. A bare perusal of the contents of the plaint would reveal that the suit in
question involves determination of right of the plaintiffs to possess the
land in question, therefore, the said dispute in terms of the ratio laid
12 RSA No. 2/2025
down by the Full Bench of this Court in case titled as Jagtu and
others Vs. Badri and others reported in 2010 (8) JKJ[HC] 177 is
amenable to the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer (Collector), a forum
created under the provisions of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. The suit
before the civil court is, therefore, barred by provisions contained in
Section 25 read with Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
23. In view of the above, both the trial court as well as the 1 st Appellate
Court have rightly appreciated the controversy and come to the
conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law and is liable to
be rejected.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal does not raise any
question of law, much less a substantial question of law, which
requires to be determined by this Court in second appeal. The appeal
lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed along with the
connected applications.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
Jammu
04.04.2025
Sahil Padha
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No.
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
Sahil Padha
2025.04.15 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link