SANSAR CHAND Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three writ petitions and raise common questions of fact and law. This single judgment will, therefore, dispose of all these three writ petitions.

(2.) THE petitioners have averred that their father purchased land in village Gangoo Chak by sale deed dated 20 -4 -1967. Respondent No. 3 brought a suit for possession of the said land on the basis of right of prior purchase against the petitioners in the Court of the District Judge, Jammu. It was later on transferred to the Court of the Munsiff, Jammu. After the notification under the Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1962, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was promulgated, the suit was transferred by the Munsiff to the Tehsildar, respondent No. 2 who passed decree for possession in favour of respondent No, 3. The suit was contested by the petitioners on the ground that respondent No. 3 had no right of prior purchase and that the sale was made with her knowledge and that she had waived the right. Against the judgment and decree of respondent No. 2, an appeal was preferred before the Settlement Officer, respondent No. 1 who dismissed the same on 31 -12 -1971. The impugned judgment of the Tehsildar as also of the appellate judgment of respondent No. 1 have been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the Tehsildar the Consolidation Officer or for the matter of that respondent No. 1, the Settlement Officer, had no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties in a civil suit. The Act did not confer any such power on them, nor could respondent No. 2 try and decide the suit of a civil nature. The suit was of a civil nature and could only be decided and tried by a civil court. In this way, it is submitted, the petitioners have been deprived of their land otherwise than in due course of law and without the authority of law. The petitioner have, therefore, prayed that the court may issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the judgments and decrees of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and also issue a writ of prohibition restraining respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the land in question.

(3.) OBJECTIONS have not been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 has, however, filed the objections in which she has contested the claim of the petitioners to seek extraordinary remedy from this court by way of writ. It is averred by respondent No. 3 that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had full jurisdiction in the matter and the judgments and decrees passed in the proceedings before them do not suffer from any legal infirmity.