Civil Courts Cannot Adjudicate Disputes Over Determination Of Right To Possess Land Under Agrarian Land Reforms Act: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that where in a suit right to possession is claimed or disputed and it is referable to the officer or the authority appointed under the Agrarian Reforms Act, the Civil Court is debarred from settling such a dispute.

The petitioner had argued that lower courts erred in rejecting the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It said that the Agrarian Reforms Act was misapplied, and the plaintiffs' claim of ownership and possession should be addressed by a civil court.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the bare perusal of the contents of plaint revealed that suit called for the determination of the right to possess the said land as the petitioner had admitted to the extent that they were not in possession of the said land and thus section 19(3)(e) of the act empowers the Collector to handle such cases, including adverse possession and other land-related disputes.

The petitioner had submitted the land reforms act was misinterpreted and therefore, the present court had to decide the question of law relating to interpretation of land rights and bar of jurisdiction under Agrarian law.

The respondent submitted that The suit was barred under Section 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, which excludes civil court jurisdiction over such disputes as the petitioner was admittedly out of possession and only the revenue officer Section 19(3)(e) was empowered to adjudicate the issue.

The court held that the appellant court have rightly appreciated the controversy and come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law and is liable to be rejected.

The court said that in the present 2nd appeal the law is very clear that same lies only when appellant seeks intervention of the appellant court in determining any substantial question of law. The court added that present appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law.

The court also said that once it is shown that the land in question falls under the definition of section 2(9) of the Agrarian Land Reforms Act the same is amenable to the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer (Collector), a forum created under the provisions of the above Act.

The court for its decision relied on full Bench decision in Jagtu vs. Badri, reaffirming that civil courts lack jurisdiction where disputes of possession fall under Agrarian law.

BACKGROUND:

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of 18 Kanals 18 Marlas of land in Village Bandhan, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban.

They alleged that the respondents (defendants) were strangers to the land who manipulated revenue records and took over possession of part of the land. Although mutations in favor of the defendants were later set aside, the plaintiffs claimed they were still not handed back possession.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and a mandatory injunction to recover possession and prevent construction or alienation by the defendants which came to be rejected on the ground that the civil court did not had the jurisdiction to decide the revenue case.

The petitioner filed an appeal which also came to be dismissed and hence the present 2nd Appeal.

APPEARANCE

Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate For Petitioner

Case-Title: Gulzar Begum and another vs Raja Begum and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 155

Click Here To Read/Download Order