Omission Of S.19(3) Of Agrarian Reforms Act Revived Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Possession-Based Injunction Suits: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a civil suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to protect possession over land remains maintainable before a civil court notwithstanding the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, observing that the omission of Section 19(3) from the statute has substantially altered the legal position governing jurisdictional objections in such matters.The Court was hearing a civil revision petition filed by Sohan Singh and others challenging an order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hiranagar, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint had been dismissed. The petitioners contended that the dispute related to cultivating possession and tenancy rights over agricultural land and was therefore exclusively triable by revenue authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act. Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while dismissing the revision petition, observed that “With the omission of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Agrarian Reforms Act from the statutes after the Re-organization of State of Jammu & Kashmir, the jurisdiction with the civil court with regard to possessory rights seeking injunction thereon cannot be stated to be ousted.” Background:The dispute arose from a suit filed by Chuni Lal seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession over land situated at Village Bhaiya, Tehsil Hiranagar, District Kathua. According to the plaint, the respondent's father had been cultivating the land prior to 1971 and his possession was reflected in the revenue records. Following his father's death, the respondent and his brother allegedly continued cultivating the land. The respondent further claimed that he had already been declared owner in possession of the land by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hiranagar, through an order passed under the Agrarian Reforms Act. The respondent alleged that in September and November 2025, the defendants attempted to trespass upon the land, threatened to dispossess him and undertook activities aimed at asserting control over the property by installing cement poles, barbed wire fencing and a tin shed. Consequently, he instituted a civil suit seeking protection of his possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. They argued that the dispute related to cultivating possession and tenancy rights, matters which, according to them, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities under the Agrarian Reforms Act and were therefore barred from adjudication by civil courts. The trial court rejected the application, prompting the present revision petition before the High Court. Court's Observation:In order to adjudicate the matter the principal question that arose before the Court was whether the plaint disclosed a cause that was barred by law so as to warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.The petitioners relied heavily upon the Full Bench judgment in Jagtu & Ors. v. Badri & Ors. to contend that disputes concerning cultivating possession and rights flowing from the Agrarian Reforms Act were beyond the jurisdiction of civil courts.The High Court, however, found the reliance misplaced. Justice Chowdhary observed that the Full Bench decision had been rendered in the context of Section 19(3)(e) of the Agrarian Reforms Act, a provision that no longer forms part of the statute after the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the legal foundation on which the petitioners relied had materially changed, the Court said. The Court noted that the respondent was not seeking declaration of tenancy rights or adjudication of issues falling within the exclusive domain of revenue authorities. Instead, he had approached the civil court seeking protection of his possession against alleged acts of dispossession and interference. Such relief, according to the Court, squarely falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Suresh & Ors. v. Som Nath & Anr., wherein it had been held that a suit seeking permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction concerning possessory rights over land is cognizable by a civil court and is not barred by the Agrarian Reforms Act. The Court also referred to Bagh Ali & Ors. v. Mushtaq Ahmed & Ors. and reiterated that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court is required to examine only the averments contained in the plaint and determine whether any statutory bar is apparent on the face of the pleadings. Applying these principles, the Court found that the respondent had specifically pleaded that he was in possession of the suit land, had already been declared owner by the competent authority and was seeking only protection against threatened dispossession. In such circumstances, the suit was clearly maintainable ...

Omission Of S.19(3) Of Agrarian Reforms Act Revived Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Possession-Based Injunction Suits: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Omission Of S.19(3) Of Agrarian Reforms Act Revived Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Possession-Based Injunction Suits: J&K&L High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers