Section 25 J&K Agrarian Reformers Act Bars Jurisdiction Of Civil Court; All Proceedings Are To Be Conducted By Revenue Officer: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the order of the Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Anantnag (Trial Court), whereby the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held, “In the above context, it is to be noted that Section 25 of the Act creates a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising out of the Act or the rules made thereunder.”

“All these proceedings are to be conducted by a Revenue Officer in exercise of his powers under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues which were raised by the parties in the suit, which, primarily, pertain to entitlement of the defendant to resume the suit land”, it added.

Advocate Syed Wasiq represented the Petitioner while Advocate Showkat Ali Khan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioners filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the predecessor in interest of the respondents, who died during the pendency of the petition, before the Trial Court. The case of the plaintiffs was that the second plaintiff and the father of the first plaintiff were recorded as tenants of land but the suit land was assigned two new Khasra numbers. It was pleaded that the father of the original defendant was the ex-owner of the suit land, and after the application of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reformers Act , he ceased to have any right, claim or interest in the suit land. It was further pleaded that the original defendant, who was employed with the Office of Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, was misusing his position and was trying to force his entry into the suit land.

The original defendant filed his written statemen in which he pleaded that the suit was barred under Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 58 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules, and the plaintiffs had tampered with the revenue record. The Trial Court concluded that the dispute between the parties was fundamentally pertaining to Agrarian Reforms Authorities and the civil court could not interfere in such matters. The Appellate Court proceeded to reject the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to adverse possession over the suit land. The petitioners/plaintiffs challenged the impugned order on the ground that Section 19(3) stands deleted in terms of Jammu And Kashmir (Adaptation Of State Laws) Fifth Order, 2020; therefore, the trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute raised by the plaintiffs in the suit.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted that Section 25 creates a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court. It was noticed that an elaborate procedure has been prescribed under Rule 21 of the Rules with regard to the manner in which a petition for resumption of land filed by a person in whose favour mutation under Section 7 of the Act has been attested, is to be dealt with. It provides for granting an opportunity of hearing to the person who is in possession of the resumed land.

The Bench noted that all the proceedings are to be conducted by a Revenue Officer in exercise of his powers under the provisions. As per the Bench, the view taken by the trial court as upheld by the Appellate Court that, prima facie, the civil court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the suit, neither appeared to be illegal nor perverse.

Thus, finding no merit in the petition, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Ghulam Mohammad Reshi @gulla v. Smt. Kamla Ji (Case No.: CM(M) No.124/2024)

Click here to read/download Order