Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Om Parkash And Another vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 13 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2104
Serial No. 126
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 2097/2026
CM No. 4537/2026
Om Parkash and another .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. M K Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. H A Farooqi, Advocate
vs
UT of J&K and others ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Assisting counsel to
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
13.07.2026
1. The petitioners claim to be the lawful owners in possession of land
measuring 09 kanals and 04 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 1706,
situated at Village Ambaraan, Tehsil Akhnoor, District Jammu. It is
their case that a civil suit concerning the subject property is already
pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court, wherein,
vide order dated 15.05.2026, the parties have been directed to maintain
status quo with regard to the suit property. It is further averred that the
petitioners approached respondent Nos. 4 and 5 seeking demarcation of
the aforesaid land; however, their request has not been entertained.
According to the petitioners, the respondents have declined to undertake
the demarcation solely on the ground that the Civil Court has directed
the parties to maintain status quo.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, it is evident that the relief sought in the present writ petition is
essentially a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to
2 WP(C) No. 2097/2026
CM No. 4537/2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2104
conduct demarcation of the aforesaid land. It is, however, an admitted
position that the dispute with regard to the subject property is already
pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court and that an order
directing the parties to maintain status quo is operating in the matter.
Such an order is always amenable to clarification, modification or
appropriate directions by the Court which has passed it.
3. In these circumstances, the petitioners had an equally efficacious and
appropriate remedy of approaching the trial Court for suitable directions,
including the appointment of a commissioner for local inspection under
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and, if considered
necessary, for carrying out demarcation of the suit property. Since the
trial Court is already seized of the dispute, it is fully competent to pass
such ancillary or consequential orders as may be warranted for the
effective adjudication of the controversy.
4. Viewed thus, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be faulted for declining to
undertake the demarcation in view of the subsisting order of status quo
passed by the Civil Court. The controversy raised by the petitioners is
essentially a private civil dispute between the parties to the pending suit.
No element of public law is involved so as to warrant the exercise of
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ of
mandamus cannot be issued to compel the revenue authorities to
undertake demarcation in a matter where the Civil Court is already
seized of the dispute and has passed an interim order governing the
rights of the parties.
5. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present writ
petition is misconceived and amounts to an attempt to bypass the
3 WP(C) No. 2097/2026
CM No. 4537/2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2104
remedy available before the trial Court, which is already in seisin of the
matter. The petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate relief before the
Civil Court, including a prayer for appointment of a commissioner or for
issuance of appropriate directions regarding demarcation of the suit
property.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with the aforesaid liberty.
No order as to costs.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
Jammu
13.07.2026
Diksha
