ORDER
Mufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Ag. C.J.
1. By means of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the following order passed by the 2nd Addl. Munsif, Srinagar, passed on 21-10-1978, in a suit for possession based on right of prior purchase.
“Perused the application and the main suit. Application supported with an affidavit. Prima facie case appears in favour
of the plaintiff. Issue notice to the opposite party for objections, if any. Meanwhile the parties be directed to maintain status quo on spot till the next date of hearing. Put up with the main suit.”
The sole ground urged in support of this revision is that the land in suit is agricultural land and, consequently, the civil court had no power to try, much less, pass any interim order in the suit. For this, reliance has been placed on Section 19 (3) (e) of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976. At the relevant time Section 19 (3) (e) was as under.
“(3) The following applications, suits and proceedings shall be disposed of by a Collector:–
(a) to (d) xxx xx
(e) all other cases of dispute including those where the party in possession pleads adverse possession against the recorded owner/intermediary.”
In Mohinder Pal Singh v. Kailash Devi, 1980 Kash LJ, 150, it has been held by this court that Section 19 (3) (e) of the Act contemplates suits and proceedings between a recorded owner Or intermediary on one hand, and the party in possession on the other in which the right to possess is claimed or disputed. It has been further held that such suits and proceedings would include suits and proceedings in which the party in possession has pleaded adverse possession as a ground of claim or defence. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed possession on the basis of right of prior purchase in respect of the land which has been purchased by the other side. Accordingly it does not clearly fulfil the conditions set out above. Consequently even if it is assumed that the disputed land is agricultural land as denned in Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, still the suit is not triable by the Collector. It necessarily follows that the suit does not fall outside the jurisdiction of the civil court. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force in it and must fail.
2. The result, therefore, is that this revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
