TAJA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against an order of the Revenue Minister dated: 24.10 1984. By virtue of his order the Revenue Minister has directed that the appeal pending before the District Judge Pulwama be concluded. It appears that Munsiff Tral had passed a decree in favour of the petitioner in November, 1970. That decree was appealed against before the District Court. In the meantime Agrarian Reforms Act had come into force. The appeal was in routine manner transferred to the authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act. An application in the meantime seems to have been filed by Mst. Taja against the contesting respondents that they are in illegal occumpation and on that basis cognizance was taken by the Collector, Agrarian Referms Pulwama. The Collector has in his judgment dated: 15 -10 -1980 mentioned that the suit already was pending and an appeal is also pending. However on the basis of application he has held that the respondents are in unauthorised occupation. On appeal the Commissioner Agrarian, though agreeing with the Collector has remarked that title of the land is decided by the civil Court and then the civil Court should have transferred the case to the Collector, In the present case the contesting respondents rely on a sale deeds which are impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the sale deeds were executed by a limited owner. In our opinion the Collector or any other authority under, the Agrarian Reforms Act has on jurisdiction to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of a document creating or extinguishing an interest in the land. It is however the civil Court only which can decide such questions. Incidentally in this case the complicated questions of title had been also involved which needs consideration by the Civil Court. In customs which are prevalent among the agricultural classes in the villages, a widow gets limited interest, otherwise under the personal law she has an absolute interest to the extent of specific share. The law is that presumption is in favour of personal law and not in favour of custom. Personal law will be superseded only if the custom is proved. Custom and validity of custom can be determined by the Civil Court and not by the authority under the Agrarian Reforms Act. As to what are the rights of the only daughter in the property of her father is also a matter which needs consideration by the civil court. Under custom she may be agnate of her father and may be entitled to inherit the entire property depriving the resudlaries of their right. But under personal law she gets a large share and residue goes to resudiaries. These are all matters which can be decided by a civil court and not by revenue Court or an authority under the Agrarian Reforms Act. The Revenue Minister, therefore, was right in holding that the appeal be first decided by the District Court as regards title of the parties. Regarding the possession of the land, that will be dealt with by the authority constituted under, the Agrarian Reforms Act.

(2.) THE writ petition as such is dismissed in limine.