JIA LAL Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against an order of the City Judge, Srinagar, holding that the suit for declaration brought by the plaintiffs in respect of their alleged share in the compensation awarded to the defendant, was maintainable.

(2.) A preliminary objection was taken by counsel for the respondents that the revision application would not lie inasmuch as the order passed by the trial Judge was an interlocutory order and was not revisable. The learned counsel for the applicant argued in reply that the question before the trial Court was whether or not it had jurisdiction to try the suit and as the trial Court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit it usurped the jurisdiction which it did not possess and, therefore, the order was revisable.In view of the fact that the question involved in this case was that of jurisdiction, in my opinion, revision would lie. The preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is, therefore, overruled.

(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (No. X of 1990) bar a suit of this description. The relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act may be reproduced here. Section 6 of the Act provides that when the Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of the Revenue Minister or of some officer duly authorized in this behalf.