The dispute is amenable to the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer (Collector) under the Agrarian Reforms Act: J&K High Court : Civil courts cannot adjudicate possession claims under land reform
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the second appeal filed against concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which had rejected a civil suit seeking possession and declaration of ownership over agricultural land. The High Court held that the subject matter of the suit was exclusively cognizable by a Revenue Officer under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The Court directed that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and upheld the decisions of the courts below rejecting the plaint on this basis.
The present appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh was filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Principal District Judge, Ramban. The said judgment had upheld the earlier decision of the learned Sub-Judge, Ramban dated 30.08.2022, whereby the plaint filed by the appellants was rejected on the ground that the suit was barred by provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act.
The appellants, who were the original plaintiffs, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that they were the owners in possession of land measuring 10 Kanals 18 Marlas situated under Khasra Nos. 74/7, 78/8, and 76/7, and an additional 8 Kanals under Khasra No. 126/49/1 at Village Bandhan, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit land had devolved upon them through ancestral succession and that the defendants, whom they referred to as strangers to the property, had illegally entered their names into the revenue records with the intention to take possession of the property.
It was further alleged that the defendants took possession of the land measuring 10 Kanals 18 Marlas and subsequently obtained attestation of mutation in their favour. Regarding the 8 Kanal land under Khasra No. 126/49/1, the plaintiffs stated that although they were in possession of this land, the defendants had recently begun interfering with their possession and had denied them entry into the said land. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants had taken over the residential house constructed by their father on the disputed land.
The plaintiffs contended that they had challenged the mutation orders before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban, and these orders had been set aside. Despite this, the defendants continued to retain possession of the land. The plaintiffs also referred to a previous suit filed by the husband of defendant No. 1 for adverse possession, which had been dismissed by the Sub-Judge, Ramban on 16.09.2015.
The suit sought a decree declaring the plaintiffs as owners in possession of the combined 18 Kanals 18 Marlas of land and a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over possession of the 8 Kanals of land falling under Khasra No. 126/49/1. They also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or raising any construction on the disputed property.
The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial court, asserting that the suit was barred under Section 25 of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. The trial court, by judgment dated 30.08.2022, accepted the application and dismissed the suit on the ground that the subject matter of the suit pertained to issues arising under the Agrarian Reforms Act, over which civil courts have no jurisdiction.
Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiffs filed a first appeal before the Principal District Judge, Ramban. The appellate court, by judgment dated 18.12.2024, upheld the findings of the trial court and confirmed that the suit was indeed barred by the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the High Court by way of second appeal under RSA No. 2/2025. In support of the appeal, they filed CM No. 1144/2025 placing on record a set of proposed questions of law. These included whether the suit was barred under the Agrarian Reforms Act, whether the land in question fell within the definition of “land” under Section 2(9) of the Act, and whether the suit was maintainable under the Specific Relief Act, 1977.
The appellants contended that both the trial court and the first appellate court had failed to properly consider the nature of the controversy and had not followed the procedure prescribed under law. They maintained that they were the rightful owners of the property and that the defendants had no lawful claim to the land. The appeal was taken up for final hearing on 04.04.2025 by Justice Sanjay Dhar.
The record, including the judgments of both the courts below, was examined. The key question before the High Court was whether the subject matter of the suit—i.e., the plaintiffs’ right to possession of the suit land—was one that could be entertained by a civil court or whether it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer under the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act. The Court was also required to determine whether the appeal raised any substantial question of law warranting its consideration in second appeal under the provisions of civil procedure.
The Court proceeded to address these issues by examining the scope of Sections 19 and 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, as well as the nature of relief sought in the plaint.
Here is the Court Observations section, based strictly on the judgment, using only direct quotes in italics and without any interpretation or commentary:
The Court stated: “The issue involved in this case is as to whether the subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiffs before the trial court is cognizable by a Revenue Officer and as such barred in terms of Section 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and if not whether this appeal raises any substantial question of law for its determination.”
In order to determine the jurisdictional bar, the Court reproduced Section 25 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act which provides: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force—(a) No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under this Act or the rules made thereunder; and (b) No order of any officer or authority passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be called in question in any Civil Court.”
The Court noted: “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would reveal that a Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter arising under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act or the rules made thereunder.”
In discussing the scope of powers conferred under Section 19, the Court quoted: “The Government may, by notification, determine the functions to be discharged or the powers to be exercised under this Act by any class of Revenue Officers.”
and “All other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner/intermediary” are to be decided by the Collector.
The Court observed: “From perusal of the Sub-Section (3)... it is clear that suits and proceedings which are cognizable by a Collector include... all other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner/intermediary.”
The Court referred to a Full Bench judgment in Jagtu and others Vs. Badri and others, 2010 (8) JKJ[HC] 177, and quoted the following:
“The words ‘all other cases of dispute’ are of wide amplitude and must cover all cases in which right to possess the land is claimed or disputed. These words can have no application to disputes of mere title and succession.”
“Therefore where in a suit or proceedings right to possession is claimed or disputed, it is referable to the officer or the authority appointed under the Act and the civil court is debarred from settling such a dispute.”
The Court further recorded: “Clause (e) cannot be read ejusdem generis with clauses (a) to (d)... By using the word ‘including’ in clause (e) legislature has intended that the principle of ejusdem generis be not made applicable to cases of dispute...”
The Court continued its analysis of Jagtu by stating:
“In suits or proceedings involving claim to possession, questions will fall for determination as regards the capacity of a party to get possession of the land under the Act of 1976... Now these questions cannot be decided or settled by the civil court as they affect the very relief sought by the plaintiff and are required to be dealt with under the Act by the appropriate authority.”
“All such suits pending in courts are required to be transferred to the Collector as they cannot be tried by the civil court.”
The Court also cited illustrative situations from the judgment: “Take a case where a suit for possession is brought by A against B on the basis of possessory title. B raises the plea that A already holds the land up to the ceiling limit... these questions cannot be decided by a civil court.”
“Again, take the case of the plaintiff who in exercise of right of prior purchase claims the suit land on the ground that he is the tenant... therefore the suit shall have to be decided by the appropriate authority and not by the civil court.”
The Court concluded: “The forum created under Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act is vested with jurisdiction to decide not only the disputes which arise under the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act but the said forum has also jurisdiction to decide all other cases of disputes which may fall under the categories mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of the Sub-Section (3) of Section 19.”
Adverting to the pleadings, the Court stated: “The appellants/plaintiffs have clearly admitted in the plaint that they are out of possession of the suit land.”
It was further noted: “A perusal of the plaint shows... the plaintiffs at some places have claimed that they are in possession... but thereafter they have clearly pleaded that the respondents have prevented them from entering the said portion of the suit land.”
“There is clear cut admission on the part of the plaintiffs that they are out of possession of the suit property.”
The Court held: “The land which is the subject matter of the suit falls within the definition of ‘land’ as contained in Section 2(9) of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act.”
The Court concluded: “A bare perusal of the contents of the plaint would reveal that the suit in question involves determination of right of the plaintiffs to possess the land in question, therefore, the said dispute... is amenable to the jurisdiction of Revenue Officer (Collector)... The suit before the civil court is, therefore, barred by provisions contained in Section 25 read with Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act.”
In view of the above, both the trial court as well as the 1st Appellate 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law, which requires to be determined by this Court in second appeal. The appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed along with the connected applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate
Case Title: Gulzar Begum and another v. Raja Begum and others
Case Number: RSA No. 2/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
