Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Muslim Community Of Village Sarai … vs Union Territory Of J And K And Others on 4 March, 2025
Author: Puneet Gupta
Bench: Puneet Gupta
Sr. No. 06
Regular
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
LPA 52/2023 in[OWP 1120/2011]
CM(1337/2023) CM(1339/2023)
MUSLIM COMMUNITY OF VILLAGE SARAI DANGERPORA AND ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
OTHERS
Through: Ms. Suwaiba, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA &
Mr. Mohammad Younis, Assisting Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
ORDER
04.03.2025
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the
appellants/petitioners who are from the Muslim community of
Village Sarai, Dangerpora and are aggrieved by the judgment
dated 29-03-2022 passed in a writ petition bearing OWP No.
1120/2011.
2. The case before the learned Single Judge was a challenge given
to the entries made in the ownership column of Jamabandi and
Girdawari relating to the ownership of the ‘State’ over the land
under Survey No. 1507 situated at Village Sarai, Dangerpora.
There was also a prayer for a direction to the respondents before
the learned Single Judge to hold enquiry into the matter and to
restore the earlier position in the revenue records.
3. Before the learned Single Judge, the case of the
petitioners/appellants was that the land measuring 28 kanals and
8 marlas under survey No. 1507 was initially recorded as
Shamilat Deh land belonging to the villagers as per the
Jamabandi of 1987-88 (Bikrami), which is equivalent to the year
1967-68 of the Gregorian calendar.
4. It was stated that the revenue entries have been changed and in
the ownership column the land in question was shown as a State
land. It was further the case of the appellants that the possession
of the land, however, still remained with the villagers and that
the change in entries were made without any notice to the
landholders which violated the relevant provisions of Jammu and
Kashmir Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1962 and deprive the
demands of their ownership rights over the land.
5. It was also the stand of the appellants before the learned Single
Judge that they did not have knowledge of the change in revenue
entries which they came to know very recently.
6. The respondents had opposed the writ petition before the learned
Single Judge by filing the reply where they took a stand that the
relevant entry had been made in the ownership column in the
year 1967-68 as per the Gregorian calendar. It was also the stand
of the respondents-State that the petitioners had an alternate
remedy under the revenue laws which they did not avail and,
therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
7. After a bi-party hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the
petition with a speaking order. While doing so, the learned
Single Judge held that the change in the entries of the revenue
record had admittedly taken place in the year 1967-68 AD and
that the petitioners/appellants came to the court after 42 years
while they had an alternate remedy before the revenue
authorities under Section 9 of the J&K Consolidation of
Holdings Act 1962. The learned Single Judge further held that
instead of availing the alternate remedy, the
appellants/petitioners directly approached the High Court in
order to get over the law of limitation on the grounds that they
were ignorant of the change of revenue entries.
8. The contention of ignorance of the change in the revenue entries
was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that the
land in question and the periodic revision of the revenue records
pertained to the land which is situated in the same village as the
petitioners and, thereafter, held on legal grounds that where there
is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in filing a
writ petition and the same is not satisfactorily explained, the
Court under Article 226 may refuse to exercise its plenary
jurisdiction.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the
land in question is still being used as a graveyard is untenable.
The law relating to delay and laches is well settled. Although
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, there is no
statutory limitation applicable but broadly the law of laches
would operate.
10. For the sake of convenience, even the law of laches relating to
filing of a writ petition would normally take into account a
period of 03 years from the date the cause of action has arisen
until and unless, for reasons which are justifiable, the court, on
its own ex debito justitiae, arrives at the conclusion that the
delay was not deliberate and the interest of justice demands that
the petition be heard on merits. However, before the court can
come to such a conclusion, it is for the petitioners to cross the
threshold by placing on record the material that would make the
court take such a view.
11. In this case, no reasonable answer has been given by the
appellants with regard to the delay. Undisputedly, they are
villagers in the same village where the land is also situated and
they ought to have exercised due diligence in protecting the said
land if they were of the opinion that it was commonly used by
the citizens of the village.
12. Under the circumstances, this court does not find any perversity
in the judgment dated 29-03-2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge. The appeal is dismissed.
13. However, if any fresh cause of action arises to the appellants,
they are given the liberty of approaching the revenue authorities,
who shall decide their representations strictly in accordance with
law without being influenced by the observations made in this
order.
(PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR
04.03.2025
Aamir
Whether the order is speaking Yes/No
Whether approved for reporting Yes/No
Amir Rashid Sofi
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
06.03.2025 11:38
