LAWS(J&K)-2009-3-32

GH HASSAN GANAI Vs. SUDERSHAH KATIYAL

Decided On March 20, 2009
Gh Hassan Ganai Appellant
V/S
Sudershah Katiyal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT point for consideration is as to whether the trial court was competent to issue Commission in terms of Order 39, Rule 7 of CPC so as to ask for demarcation and spot inspection of land of the plaintiff and to submit detailed report regarding actual position on spot as per revenue records.

(2.) APPEARING counsel for the petitioner would contend that for demarcation of land, there is proper machinery provided under Land Revenue Act. Revenue Agency has power to demarcate and it is for the parties to approach the concerned authority. Trial Court was not required to ask the Revenue Authorities to do what the plaintiff should have prayed for before the revenue authorities, therefore, application is barred by Sections 93, 94, 95, 98 and 139 of the Land Revenue Act as well as Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules. The Sections 93, 94, 95, 98 of Land Revenue Act provide for powers of the Revenue Officers vis -a -vis demarcation of land.

(3.) SECTION 139 of the Land Revenue Act excludes jurisdiction of the civil court in the matters which are within the jurisdiction of Revenue Officers subject to exception. Sub section (2) of said Section clearly shows as to what are the matters where civil court has no jurisdiction. It nowhere prescribes bar for identification of the land on spot. Rule 17 of Land Revenue Rules provides for boundaries and Survey marks. Thus, submission projected by the learned counsel is totally misplaced because learned trial court has not asked for anything contrary to the said provisions.