QASIM DAR Vs. QASIM BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to revise an order dated 17 -11 -1978 passed by the City Munsiff, Srinagar, transferring a civil suit for disposal to the Collector under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, (shortly the Act). The suit pertains to land as defined in the Act. On this ground, the City Munsiff has held that the civil court has ceased to have the power and jurisdiction to try the suit which has now vested in the Collector (Agrarian) under the Act, and as such the suit is liable to be transferred to the Collector (Agrarian) concerned. For this he has relied on Section 25 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 Section 25 reads:

(2.) THIS section is in pari materia with Section 36 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1972: That Section fell for consideration before a Full Bench of this court in Rahim Vs Amma Dar and ors (AIR 1975 J & K 33). It was held: This section bars the jurisdiction of Civil courts in matters specified therein. The section is widely worded. It forbids the civil courts from dealing with or adjudicating upon any question or matter which is by or under the new Act Or the Rules made thereunder required to be dealt with or adjudicated upon by an officer or authority appointed under the new Act or the rules made thereunder. It also provides that an order by such officer or authority shall not be open to question in any civil court. This Section has obviously reference to the jurisdiction exercised by the civil cases falling under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is no corresponding provision barring the jurisdiction in like manner of courts or authorities having jurisdiction to try and determine Revenue cases. On principle, however, the bar must be treated to be equally applicable to such courts and authorities, the reason is that the new Act clearly indicates that the questions or matter arising thereunder should be dealt with and determined by the special machinery created by or under it or the rules made thereunder and being a special Act dealing with a particular subject comprehensively the jurisdiction conferred on the officer and authorities constituting such machinery must be held to be exclusive. In this background if a question is raised before any civil court or officer or authority whether or not a particular land has vested in the State or any other person under the new Act such court or officer or authority shall not have any jurisdiction to decide this question or even determine the collateral facts on which the decision of that question rests. Where, therefore, any such question is raised in a pending action or an action instituted after the Act became operative, the court or the officer or authority before whom such question is raised should appropriately stay its hands in the matter pending determination of that question by the competent authority under the new Act".

(3.) ON these observations it is clear that the learned Munsiff was not justified in ordering the transfer of the suit for disposal to the Collector (Agrarian) merely because the disputed property consisted of land as defined in the Act. The view to the contrary expressed by the learned Munsiff is manifestly erroneous and unsustainable in law. The order based upon such view cannot stand and must be set aside.