JAGDISH RAJ Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Through the medium of this revision petition, order dated 8-8-94, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Jammu in revision petition (No. 18 Misc. titled State through Police Station, Bishnah v. Jagdish Raj and others) is challenged. On 6-6-89, S.H.O. Police Station, Bishnah took cognizance of the complaint regarding the apprehension of imminent breach of peace in respect of the possession of land measuring 5 kanals 13 marlas comprising of Khasra No. 355 min situate in village Kharian, Tehsil R. S. Pura. The said S.H.O. on the same day, laid report before the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pura, who under sub-clause (4) of Section 145, Cr. P. C. attached the above stated land along with structure standing thereon and kept the same on the "sapurdari" of the S.H.O. The Magistrate directed the parties to file the objections on 20-6-89.

(2.) The petitioners herein challenged the said order of attachment by filing revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, who vide his order dated 7-3-90, transferred the same to the Addl. District Magistrate, Jammu for disposal, as according to him, the dispute was regarding the agricultural land and the District Magistrate or the concerned Magistrate had the competency to adjudicate upon the dispute. The Addl. District Magistrate, Jammu vide his order dated 8-8-94 held the respondents therein namely, Sham Kour and Puran Singh in actual possession of the said land prior to two months from the date of passing of the preliminary order and as such confirmed the order impugned before him. This revision has been filed against that order of the Additional District Magistrate. It is pleaded that the disputed land is not land as defined under the J. and K. Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) and neither the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate 1st Class, R. S. Pura nor the Addl. District Magistrate, Jammu had any jurisdiction to pass the orders concerning its possession under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The entry made by the Patwari in the year 1986 was collusive and made without any authority of law. The order of "supardari" passed by the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate ran contrary to the circular issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and is not operative.

(3.) Heard the arguments.