Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has ruled that the jurisdiction of the civil court is superior to, and overrides that of the Revenue Department authorities.
The court was disposing of a petition about the ingress and egress via a patch of land at Nawlari, Pattan, disputed between two residents of the village.
It held “the jurisdiction of the civil court is superior to, and overrides, that of the revenue authorities, particularly in matters concerning title, possession, or any civil rights in respect of immovable property.”
The two kanal land belonged to Abdul Rashid Khan, and his neighbour, Bashir Ahmad Ganie, claimed rights of a pathway through the land. The owner challenged the claims of Bashir Ahmed in a civil court. However, Bashir Ahmed approached the Revenue department authorities and got “favourable” orders from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, the Deputy Commissioner and the Tehsildar, Pattan.
After hearing the parties and perusal of the matter, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal said, “once a civil suit is pending on the same subject-matter, the Revenue authorities are expected to defer their proceedings so as not to prejudice or conflict with the adjudication before the civil court.”
The bench said that respondent No. 5 (Tehsildar) has consciously initiated a civil suit before the learned Sub Judge, Pattan.
The bench said that a specific High Court judgment is misconceived. “The judgment supra categorically holds that a dispute between two private individuals concerning the use of land does not attract Section 4 of the Act, and such disputes, if any, fall within the realm of private easementary rights,” it said.
The dispute pertains exclusively to private persons and does not involve any right of the general inhabitants of the village.
The court held that the “favourable” orders by the Revenue department in favour of one party suffer from grave legal infirmities and procedural irregularity.
“The Tehsildar Pattan acted without jurisdiction and failed to appreciate the binding effect of the pending civil proceedings of sa imilar issue. The subsequent revival of revenue proceedings by the concerned Tehsildar, without any justification or reference to the pending civil suit, indicates total non-application of mind,” it said.
It noted “the respondent officers were under a solemn duty to adhere to the procedure prescribed by law and to ensure that their decision was founded on fairness, reasonableness, and due application of mind.”
It rued that essential procedural safeguards were overlooked, relevant factors were not duly considered, and the petitioner was subjected to adverse consequences without proper justification.”
The court allowed the land owner’s petition and quashed the Revenue officer’s calling for access through the disputed pathway.
It also restrained the Revenue department officers from further disturbing the present position on the spot and directed them not to harass the petitioner in any manner.
It directed that the petitioner be entitled to peaceful use and enjoyment of his property in question without any hindrance.
