INDER SINGH Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute between the parties pertains to land measuring 14 Kanals and 11 Marlas under Survey No. 184 situated in village Najawal, Tensil Akhnoor. The land belonged to one Gian Singh. By an agreement deed dated 17 -1 -1978, he agreed to sell this land to Inder Singh on the terms and conditions set out therein. In pursuance of this agreement, no sale deed was, however, executed. On 17 -8 -1978, Inder Singh filed a suit in the court of the City Judge, Jammu, being Suit No 76 of 1971, for injunction restraining Gian Singh and party from interfering with his possession of the land in question. Soon after, Gian Singh filed a cross suit in the same court, being Suit No. 82 of 1978, for a declaration that the agreement to sell dated 17 -1 -1978, was null and void, inoperative, and ineffective with a consequential relief restraining Inder Singh and his party from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. By an order dated 25 -9 -1978, the learned City Judge, transferred both the suits for disposal to the Collector, Jammu, under section 19 [4] of the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, (hereinafter called "The Act"). Aggrieved by this under, Inder Singh has come up in revision to this court;

(2.) THE learned City Judge has held that the present dispute falls within the ambit of clause (c) of section 19(3) of the Act and as such the suits are liable to be transferred for disposal to the Collector (Agrarian) under section 19(4) of the Act. He has expressed the view that the words "all other cases of dispute" occurring in clause (e) have reference to disputes relating to land to which the Act applies. This view runs counter to the view expressed by a Full Bench of the court in Jagtu Versus Badri and ors. (JKLR 1979 Supplement Part, page 1). In the opinion of the Full Bench clause (e) would be attracted "where in a suit or proceedings right to possession is claimed or disputed  in other words clause (e) would apply if the plaintiff disputes the right of the defendant to remain in possession and sues for the recovery thereof. "That is not so in the present case. Neither party has claimed such relief in the suit filed by it In the circumstances the learned City Judge was not justified in invoking clause (e) of Section 19(3) to his aid, But it does not necessarily follow that, without anything else, be could proceed with the trial. I say so, because in accordance with other provisions notably Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, the land in question was liable to be settled in the name of one party or the other with effect from 1st day of May, 1973, depending on who out of them was in cultivating possession of such land in Kharif 1971 and whether it fell within his ceiling limit. This question had a vital bearing on the outcome of the dispute in the present case. The connected suits could continue or collapse depending on whether as a result of the determination of this question the right claimed subsisted or had got extinguished. The power and jurisdiction to determine this question, is, however vested in the Collector, (Agrarian) Accordingly the learned City Judge ought to have referred this question for determination to the Collector, Agrarian) and meanwhile stayed his hands in the matter, This is what he has not done In the circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and must be set aside.

(3.) THE result therefore is, that the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the trial court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the court of the City Judge, Jammu on 22nd March, 1980.