The jurisdiction of civil courts is ousted in respect of all civil disputes relating to agricultural lands under Sections 19(3)(e) and 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976.

These bunch of cases in the nature of appeals, revisions, and references have been referred to the Full Bench and raise common questions of law of general importance relating to interpretation of Section 19 (3) (e) and Section 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976, (Act No. XVII of 1976), for short, to be referred to as the "Act of 1976". It has been debated that by virtue of the operation of the above mentioned Sections, jurisdiction of civil courts to decide all causes relating to land as derived in the Act of 1976 is barred as the law aims at completely ousting the jurisdiction of civil courts from taking cognizance of all such cases, it will be appropriate to give a brief sketch of the facts of each case:

(i) Jagtu v. Badri and Ors. is L. P. A. No. 14 of 1972 against the judgment and decree dated 29-11-1971 of Jaswant Singh, J. (as his Lordship then was). The appeal arises out of a suit for possession of agricultural land based on the right of prior purchase. The plaintiff claimed the right of prior purchase on the ground that he was the tenant of a part of the land. A question has been raised in the appeal that because of Section 25 read with Section 19 (3) (e) of the Act of 1976, the jurisdiction of the civil courts to settle, decide, or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising out of the Act of 1976, is barred. The jurisdiction to decide such matters vests exclusively with the authority appointed and, therefore, the appeal should be transferred to the Collector having jurisdiction in the case. The Division Bench seized of the appeal was of the opinion that in view of the general importance of the question raised, the matter, be referred to Full Bench,

(ii) Mst. Bhadoon v Sant Singh is Civil Second Appeal No. 49 of 1973. This question raised in the appeal is in regard In the validity of the gift deed pertaining to agricultural land.

(iii) Abdul Rashid v. Mohammad Din, Civil Second Appeal No. l9 of 1974. This appeal raises the question with regard to the cancellation of the gift deed affecting agricultural land.

(iv) Thakur Das.: v. Dev Raj and Ors Appeal No. 63 of 1974 also raises a question regarding the validity of the deed of gift affecting the agricultural land.

(v) Sunder Dass v. Ram Nath is Civil Second Appeal No. 75 of 1974, and arises out of the judgment and decree of the District Judge Poonch/Rajouri in a suit for exercise of right of prior purchase on the ground that the appellant is the co-sharer in the Land which is admittedly agricultural land as defined in the Act.

(vi) Gulzar Begum v. Syed Mohammad is Civil Second Appeal No. 37 of 1976 against the judgment of the District Judge, Poonch. The Appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the land alleged to be in possession of the plaintiff The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant obstructs and threatens to interfere with her possession on the suit land.

(vii) Habib Ullah v. Chet Ram is Civil Second Appeal No. 8 of 1974 and arises out of an application for execution of the decree for possession The appellant has raised an objection that he held the land as tenant and that he had purchased the land from one Ghulam Mohamad. He had thus become the owner of the suit land and could not, therefore, be ejected

(viii) Anand Ram v. Cheeru is Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1974, in which the plaintiff has alleged that the suit land was ancestral property and that the property has vested in the plaintiff-The mutation of the land effected in favour of the Mst. Kali was illegal and ineffective as the was never In possession of the land and the Kotha. The plaintiff also claimed the land on the basis of adverse possession. The plaintiff prayed that the gift deed executed was illegal and, ineffective. He also prayed for possession of the said land.

(ix) Amar Singh v. Sehdev Singh is civil second appeal No. 26 of 197 4 and arises out of suit for declaration brought by the plain