GH MOHD HAFIZ Vs. RAJAB BODH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of the suit out of which this revision arises. The Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act 1972 came into force. The plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint. He wanted to raise the plea to the effect that the suit was hit by the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and no longer cognizable by the civil court. The defendant opposed the application primarily on the ground that the disputed land was not covered by the definition of the "land" as given in the land Reforms Act. The learned Munsiff trying the case went into the controversy as to whether the disputed land was land as contemplated by the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and came to the conclusion that it was not so. On this finding, he dis -allowed the motion for amendment. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff has come up in revision to this court.

(2.) SECTION 25 of the J and K Agrarian Reforms Act forbids the civil courts from dealing with or adjudicating upon any question or matter which is by or under the new Act or said rules made there under required to be dealt with or adjudicated upon by an officer or authority appointed under the Act. The question as to whether the disputed land was land as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act, was obviously a question arising under the said Act. That being so, the learned Munsiff acting as a civil court had no jurisdiction to determine the same. The jurisdiction to determine this question lay with the Collector (Agrarian). Accordingly if in the opinion of the learned Munsiff, the disposal of the motion for amendment was dependent upon the determination of the question as to whether the disputed land was land as defined in the Land Reforms Act, he should have referred this question for adjudication to the Collector (Agrarian) and meanwhile stayed his hands in the matter. He has not done so, On the other, he has proceeded to determine the question himself and after holding that the disputed land was not land as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act, dismissed the motion for amendment. The determination is clearly without jurisdiction and equally so the order of rejection of the amendment based thereupon. In the circumstances, the order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE result, therefore, is that this revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to refer the controversy as to whether the disputed land is land as defined in the Agrarian Reforms Act, to the Collector (Agrarian) and meanwhile stay his hands in the matter. He should fix a time limit within which the finding should be submitted by the Collector. After the finding is received, he will pass suitable orders in the amendment matter. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 31st July, 1980