GH RASOOL BHAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against an order passed on 27. 9. 1971, by the Sub Judge, C. J. M, Srinagar, transferring pending suit for disposal to the Collector, Agrarian under section 19 3 e of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, shortly referred to as "The Act".

(2.) IN Mahinder Paul Versus Kailash Devi, 1980 K. L. J 150, it has been held by this court that clause e contemplates suits and proceedings between a recorded owner or intermediary on one hand and the party in possession on the other, in which the light to possess is claimed or disputed, and that such suits and proceedings in which the party in possession has pleaded adverse possession as a ground of claim or defence. All cases falling under this category which are pending in civil or revenue courts or before Revenue Officers are liable to be transferred for disposal to the Collector agrarian concerned. In the present case, the dispute relates to the land which is recorded in the name of the State. The plaintiff is the party in possession. He has asked for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession. Applying the above test, the suit is liable to be transferred for disposal to the Collector Agrarian concerned.

(3.) FOR a contrary view, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Act Section 3 of the Act, inter -alia, provides that Sections 26, 31, 38 and 39 and no other Section of the Act, shall be applicable to the lands owned, held, or acquired by the Government. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed land is land owned by the State and as such the provisions of section 19 3 e of the Act would not apply in the present case. It necessarily follows that the suit is not liable to be transferred for disposal to the Collector, Agrarian. In my opinion the exception would come in where the suit land is admittedly the property of the State or, in other words, where the admitted position is that the State has a subsisting title in the suit land. That is not the position in the present case. The parties claim title to the exclusion of one another. The plaintiff has claimed title on the bais of adverse possession. The State his denied his title and claimed that it continues to be the title -holder. In the circumstances, the exception provided by Section 3 of the act, cannot be validly invoked in the present case. The argument fails.