NEK RAM Vs. SOLAY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Lok Adalat organised by Tehsil Legal Services Committee, Udhampur dated 29-12-1998. By means of this decree, suit of the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed against the petitioner for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from interferring in plaintiff s possession over the land, which was subject-matter of the suit and Kotha constructed thereon, situated in village Narore, Tehsil Udhampur. Suit was filed by the respondent to the effect that petitioners may be restrained from interfering over the land, which was the subject matter as detailed in the plaint. As per case set up, respondent was in cultivating possession of the land in question on the spot. He further claimed that so far as share of Nek Ram - petitioner is concerned, the same has been taken over by means of a lease deed pata-nama and affidavit adated 06-12-1994.

(2.) Copy of Khasra Girdawari and photostatt copy of Patta nama and affidavit was atached withteh plaint on 18-11-1998. Petitioner without any right to forcibly interferredd with the land and Kotha, whereas they have no right to do so.They were asked to desist, but of no use. In this background, decre has been prayed for. Respondent No.1 admitted the claim in writing and when respondents 2 and 3 appeared, they wanted the mater to be referred to Lok Adalat, that is how the mater came up bfore Lok Adalat and compromise decree has been passed. Before adverting to the merits of the case, pleaded facts need to be noted. These are that the land in question was earlier governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act. Its mutation under Section 4 of the said Act was attested in favour of the State Government and thereafter in favour of the petitioner- Nek Ram u/s 8 Respondent resumed half of the land as per the provions of this Act, whereas obtained possession of the remaining half in terms of Patta-nama and agreement referred to in the plaint. That is how he came into possession of the entire land.

(3.) In the aforesaid back ground, the purpose of enacting Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 needs to be noted. This Act was enacted with the object to provide for transfer of land to tillers thereof subject to certain conditions as well as for better utilisation of land in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.A owner as defined in this Act is entitled to hold land upto to a certain extent and the remaining land vestes in the State Government. Similarly where the land is in occupation of tenant, rights of the owners are extinguished and/or vested in the State Government. In such a situation, the tenant becomes prospective owner and is thereafter ownership rights are conferred upon the tenant under Section 8, thus the tenant becomes its absolute owner, which is in consonance with not only the purpose and object, but is also in accordance with law. When the matter was heard, Mr. Goel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised a serious contention regarding maintainability of this Revision Petition. According to him, order passed by the Lok Adalat is not by a Court and as it is not a Court Subordinate to the High Court, therefore, this revision merits dismissal. In support of his contention, reliance is placed by Mr. Goel on AIR 2000 S.C.485, Kashab Narayan Banerjee and others, Appellants v. State of Bihar, Respondent and AIR 2000 S.C.2023. P. Sarathy, Appellant v. State Bank of India, Respondent and he urged that the rvision petition is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, Mr. Raina, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that looking to the scheme of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act and then appreciating the submission of Mr. Goel will result in not only circumventing the provisions of law, but also playing fraud on the said statute. He further urged that if the revision is dismissed, this Court would be putting its seal of approval on a decree, which is not only illegal and contrary to law, but is void abinitie. By referring to Section 20(2) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1997, Mr. Raina urged that the prohibition is against filing of the appeal, but not against the revision.