Back
2007 Supreme(J&K) 175
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Ashmi & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No. 436/1997
Decided On : 07 September, 2007
Advocate For Appellant: G.N. Gowhar
Advocate For Respondent: N.H. Shah
Advocate For Respondent: G.A. Lone
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the status of protected tenants under the Agrarian Reforms Act and the limitations on the jurisdiction of civil courts in determining such matters.
Headnote:
Protected Tenant - Agrarian Reforms Act - Section 19, Section 25 - The court discussed the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, particularly Section 19 and Section 25, which deal with the rights and jurisdiction of protected tenants. The court emphasized that the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters arising under the Act and vests the authority to decide such issues in the Agrarian Reforms Court. The court highlighted the significance of the status of the tenant as a protected tenant under the Act and the limitations on the jurisdiction of civil courts in determining such matters.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashment of orders related to a land dispute under the Agrarian Reforms Act. The petitioner, Assad Wani, was declared a protected tenant, but the respondents claimed that he had lost his tenancy rights after purchasing the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Assad Wani was a protected tenant in Kharif 1971 and emphasized the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act in determining the status of tenants. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the competence and legality of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act.
Issues: The crucial issue was the status of Assad Wani as a tenant when the Agrarian Reforms Act came into operation, and whether he retained his tenancy rights after purchasing the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act, particularly Section 25, to emphasize the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act in determining the status of tenants and the limitations on the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the competence, power, and jurisdiction of the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act.
2. It is necessary to notice the brief facts of the case, as given by the petitioners in the writ petition herein:
3. It appears that one Assad Wani-tenant purchased a parcel of land measuring 3 kanals 14 marlas from one Subhan Bhat-landlord in terms of sale deed dated 31st March, 1958 registered on 13th of April, 1958. Ramzan Bhat pre-empted the sale deed by filing a suit. Ultimately suit came to be decreed by the court of first instant-First Appellate Court and this Court in Second Appeal. During pendency of the lis, Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, for short the Act, came into force. Assad Wani filed an application under Section 19 of the Act before Collector-came to be rejected vide order dated 21st of January, 1989. Feeling aggrieved, Assad Wani preferred an appeal against the order dated 21st January, 1989 passed by Assistant Collector under the Act, Budgam. Joint Agrarian Commissioner after hearing the parties allowed the appeal vide order dated 19th of May, 1994 and set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Collector) dated 21st of January, 1989 and allowed the application of Assad Wani. It is profitable to reproduce the operative part of the judgment herein:
"I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forth by the Counsel for either side and perused the record available in the file. It is a fact that the Appellant is recorded as protected tenant as is apparent from the Revenue records right from 1957 Kharief to 1971 Kharief. It is a fact that the land in question was put on superdnama in the year 1968 and at this stage the Appellant is recorded as protected tenant. If at all the land should have not been put on Superdnama, then the land would have been in the possession and tenancy of the Appellant. My predecessor has in his judgment in case Mst. Sara V/s Hamid Ahmad dt: 21.8.89 very rightly held that section 25 of the Agr. Reforms Act 1975 bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of land as is defined in Agr. Reforms Act. Also the Honble High Court has held (JKLR 1989 page No.1124) Agrarian Reforms Act section 25(b) civil court has no jurisdiction to settle, Decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under the said Act. The Honble High Court has decided the issue of right to prior purchase and not the tenancy. It is the only Agrarian Reforms Court who has the jurisdiction under the Agr. Reforms Act to decide such issue. In my opinion, who soever will be the owner of the land, the Appellant has the right to take the benefit U/S 4 and 8 of the Agr. Reforms Act being a protected tenant. I am fully convinced with the arguments put forth by the Counsel for Appellant. For the above discussions and reasons, the appeal is accepted to the extent of land appealed against and order under appeal is setaside. It is ordered that the Tehsildar concerned will corporate this order in the Revenue records and will take appropriate action under law."
4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners assailed the order of Joint Commissioner before Special Tribunal-came to be dismissed vide order dated 30th of December, 1996. It is profitable to reproduce the operative part of the order herein, which reads as under:--
"While adverting the case at hand the title of the petitioners is not disputed, their title as owners of the land has been confirmed by the Munsiff in his decree and this decree was upheld even upto the High Court. This tribunal has to consider the order of JAC in terms of the admitted position of protected tenancy of the respondents. This tribunal therefore, cannot ignore the determination of question by the authorities specified under A.R.Act so far as the question of recording the land is concerned
