The central legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of a civil court decree on the revenue court regarding the same subject, and the authority of revenue authorities to address demarcation issues.

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal by the appellants herein (respondent Nos.3 & 4 before the Writ Court) is directed against judgment dated 28.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in OWP No.1148/2017 titled Surjit Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, by virtue of which writ petition filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein has been disposed of.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are aggrieved of the order dated 28.3.2018 whereby the learned Single Judge has held that there is no scope of anyone to cause interference with the possession of the land measuring 1 kanal under Khasra no.18 situated at Channi Himmat, Jammu, owned and possessed by the respondents No.1 and 2; that Single Judge has presumed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the owners in possession of the said land on the basis of ex-parte decree which is under challenge before the Learned Sub Judge Jammu and where the ex-parte decree has been stayed. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not owners in possession of the land in Khasra no. 18 measuring 1 kanal situated at Channi Himmat Jammu. That the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in para 5 of the writ petition have stated that one Gasitu S/o Channu was also in possession of the land measuring 16 kanals as a gair maroosi prior to kharif 1971. That they have not mentioned that 16 kanals of land where Gasitu was in possession as a gair maroosi of State land, however, the appellants have specifically stated in their reply that the said land measuring 16 kanals 19 marlas has been mutated in favour of the State, that means 16 kanals 19 marlas of land in Khasra no. 18 Channi Himmat Jammu is a State land and Gasitu had no right on the State land as a gair maroosi. Said Gasitu died in 1980’s and after his demise, the said land has not been shown in possession of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 or in the name of their father. That the entries in the Khasra Girdawari of gair maroosi is not inheritable right.

3. The case of appellants in the present appeal is that the respondents no.1 and 2 are neither owners nor in possession of the land measuring 01 kanal in Khasra no.18 min Channi Himmat Jammu and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 cannot rely upon the ex-parte decree of injunction passed by Sub Registrar (Munsiff) Jammu on 27-9-1995 which has been challenged by the appellant no.2 and the operation of said ex-parte decree has been stayed by the Learned Sub Judge Jammu vide its order dated 31-8-2006.

4. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the factual position that the decree of Sub Registrar (Munsiff) Jammu wherein the Sub Registrar (Munsiff) Jammu has only mentioned about the possessory rights of Tej Ram and even the operation of the said decree was stayed by the Sub Judge Jammu in the suit filed by the appellant no.2 is an error apparent on the face of record, which can precisely and exhaustively there being an element of judicial error apparent on the face of record. The Learned Single Judge has passed the order impugned in the appeal based on the ex-parte decree which was challenged and stayed and in the decree, there is no question of ownership of 01 kanal of land of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the Learned Single Judge has passed the order without considering the documents annexed with the petition and the reply filed by the appellants herein. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge has manifestly committed an error of law. As such, the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court is liable to be quashed.

5. Heard counsel for appellants, who has reiterated all grounds taken in memo of appeal; whereas counsel for respondents who was on caveat has supported the order of Single Judge. He has further argued that disputed question of facts cannot be called in question in LPA or writ petition. That decree of civil court is always binding upon all other courts, unless it is set aside; so observation of learned Single Judge that possession of r