AHMAD BHAT Vs. STATE OF J AND K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ahad Bhat was involved in litigation with his brother's son Abdul Gani Bhat respondent No.5). The parties entered into compromise followed by a compromise decree (Annexure PA & PB) when the decree was put in execution, petitioner brother of said Ahad Bhat contested the said execution and further their contention was negated by Dy. Commissioner, Baramulla who directed execution of the decree issued by Sub Judge, Pattan. Against the order petitioner filed a revision. However, revision petition was dismissed by Financial Commissioner (revenue) on 23.6.98 holding the impugned order of Dy. Commissioner legal and the decree executable. These two orders are under challenge in this petition on grounds taken thereto based as they are on Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act.

(2.) Respondents in their objections have not denied decreeing of the suit in terse respondents 5 and 6 by Sub Judge Pattan. It is also not denied that the decree has been forwarded to revenue authority for execution. The impugned order of Dy. Commissioner and Financial Commissioner (Annexures PC & PE) are defended as within jurisdiction and not offending the provisions of Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act. Besides it is stated that the writ petitioner involves disputed question of fact in as much as, the decree/compromise is assailed on merits. Writ petitioner has challenged compromise and decree in question in a civil suit pending on the file of Sub Judge Pattan.. The suit is pending as even admitted in the writ petition.

(3.) The impugned orders of Dy. Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Annexures PC & PE) are in fact the orders which have been passed in execution proceedings while implementing and executing the compromise decree of the Sub Judge court Pattan (Annexure PB). The conclusion of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner that, the decree does not contravene the provisions of law including Agrarian Reforms Act and Big Landed Estates Abolition Act, need not be commented on merits at this stage, in as much as, the civil court is already seized of the matter in a regular civil suit where the compromise and the decree are challenged by the writ petitioner. The compromise and decree is also challenged in other aspects for the most on factual plain. The dispute is raised by the other side. Obviously in writ jurisdiction High Court is not the forum for resolution of disputed questions of fact.