Possession claims over non-agricultural land fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts.

The dispute involves land under Survey No. 771/33 in Village Kundorarian, Jammu.

In 1969, Suram Singh purchased 1 kanal of land via a sale deed from the original owners.

A civil suit for possession was transferred to the Collector, Agrarian Reforms, following the enactment of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976.

In 1991, mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of the Act were attested in favor of Amaru (Appellants' predecessor) for 1 kanal and 10 marlas.

These mutations were challenged by Suram Singh, and in 2013, the appellate authority set them aside, ordering a fresh inquiry by the Tehsildar.

Parallelly, the Special Tribunal, via order dated 25.06.2019, held that previous orders by the Collector and Regional Director—which had relegated Suram Singh to a Civil Court—were redundant in light of the ongoing fresh inquiry into the mutations.

The Appellants challenged this Tribunal order via a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge on 11.10.2019.

The Appellants filed this intra-court appeal (LPA) against that dismissal.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without recording independent reasons or adverting to essential facts

2. Whether the Special Tribunal legally possessed the authority to delegate the determination of possession over non-agricultural land to Agrarian Reform authorities instead of a Civil Court

3. Whether the prior orders of the Collector and Regional Director had become redundant due to the pending fresh inquiry into mutation entries

The Court applied the provisions of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, specifically regarding the attestation of mutations under Sections 4 and 8 and the jurisdiction of revenue authorities to determine cultivating possession.

It also referenced the principle that while revenue authorities adjudicate agricultural land disputes under the Act, claims regarding non-agricultural land or complex title disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

The Court observed that the core of the multi-decade litigation was the identification and possession of the subject land.

It noted that the Appellants' reliance on a 1999 Collector’s order was weakened because that order was passed without the benefit of the Tatima Shajra (map), which was subsequently produced by the Respondents.

The Court found that the Special Tribunal correctly identified that the 2013 orders (which set aside the Appellants' mutations and ordered a de novo inquiry) rendered the earlier proceedings before the Collector and Regional Director "otiose".

The Court emphasized that the Tehsildar is already mandated to conduct a fresh inquiry to determine the extent of land in the cultivating possession of the Appellants’ predecessor.

It clarified that if any issue arises regarding the possession of non-agricultural land, the aggrieved party must approach the Civil Court.

The Court concluded that since the demarcation process and fresh inquiry were already in progress following the Tribunal's 2019 directions, judicial interference was unnecessary.

It held that there were no grounds to interfere with the Special Tribunal's order as the controversy was now centered on a de novo factual inquiry by revenue authorities.

The Court directed that the authorities remain free to proceed with the inquiry as per the Tribunal's orders, and parties are permitted to project their claims regarding possession and the validity of sale deeds (specifically the 10-marla dispute) during those proceedings.

The original records were ordered to be returned to the concerned authority.