In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has ruled that civil courts are barred from adjudicating disputes regarding the right to possess land governed by the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. Justice Sanjay Dhar, while dismissing a second appeal in Gulzar Begum and Another vs Raja Begum and Others, held that such matters fall solely within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer (Collector) as outlined in Sections 19 and 25 of the Act.
"Where in a suit, right to possession is claimed or disputed, it is referable to the officer or authority appointed under the Agrarian Reforms Act, and the civil court is debarred from settling such a dispute." — Justice Sanjay Dhar
Case Background
The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit asserting ownership and possession over 18 Kanals 18 Marlas of land in Village Bandhan, Tehsil Gool, District Ramban. They alleged that the defendants manipulated revenue records and took illegal possession of the land, including a house built by the plaintiffs’ father.
Although mutation orders favoring the defendants were set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiffs claimed that possession was never restored. The civil suit sought a declaration of ownership and a mandatory injunction for recovery of possession.
Read also: Justice Arun Palli Appointed As Chief Justice Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
The trial court dismissed the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, citing a bar under Section 25 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. The District Judge upheld this decision on appeal, prompting the second appeal to the High Court.
Section 25 explicitly bars civil courts from entertaining matters arising under the Act, and Section 19(3)(e) lists disputes over possession — including adverse possession — as falling within the jurisdiction of the Collector.
Read also: Jammu & Kashmir Apni Party Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Act, 2025
“The words ‘all other cases of dispute’ are of wide amplitude...and must cover all cases where right to possess land is claimed or disputed.” — Full Bench in Jagtu v. Badri (2010)
Justice Dhar emphasized that even if plaintiffs used mixed language in the plaint regarding possession, their admission of being prevented from entering the land was clear. Hence, the matter involved determination of possession rights under agrarian laws, not a simple title suit.
The High Court concluded that the civil courts were right in dismissing the suit since the subject matter clearly fell within the ambit of the Agrarian Reforms Act.
“Both the trial court and the appellate court have rightly appreciated the controversy and come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law and liable to be rejected.”
Thus, the second appeal was dismissed as it failed to raise any substantial question of law.
APPEARANCE
Bodh Raj Sharma, Advocate For Petitioner
Case-Title: Gulzar Begum and another vs Raja Begum and others, 2025
