Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Bangalore vs Gandhi Nagar on 28 July, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Reserved on: 15.07.2026
CM No. 446/2023 Pronounced on: 28.07.2026
Uploaded on: 29.07.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
1. Vijay KoulSapru, Age 70 years,
W/o Lt. Sh. M.K. Sapru,
R/o H No. 160, Sector-1,
Near Janta Flour Mills,
Gangyal Garden, Jammu
Pin-180010
2. Poonam Sapru, Age 40 years,
D/o Lt. Sh. M.K. Sapru,
R/o H No. 160, Sector-1,
Near Janta Flour Mills,
Gangyal Garden, Jammu
Pin-180010
3. PreyankaSapru, Age 38 years,
D/o Lt. Sh. M.K. Sapru,
W/o VikramWanchoo,
R/o E-604, Pride Prestine
Apartment, Vasundhra Lay
Out, Ananth Nagar,
Phase-03, Bangalore South,
Bangalore, Karnataka-560100 .... Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Ms. ShivaniJalali, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Ranjana Rajput, Advocate
Vs.
1. UT of J&K,
through its Principal Secretary,
Housing & Urban Dev. Deptt,
J&K at Jammu
2. Managing Director,
J&K Housing Board,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
3. Secretary,
J&K Housing Board,
Gandhi Nagar, Jammu .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
with Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate.
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 2 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. Through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioners have called
in question Order No. JKHB-115 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022 passed by the
Managing Director, Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board, whereby,
ostensibly in compliance with the judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed by
this Court in OWP No. 1335/2009 titled „Vijay KoulSaproo and others vs.
State of J&K and others‘, the respondents have rejected the claim of the
petitioners for allotment of a residential plot at Ompora Housing Colony,
Budgam, by holding the same to be devoid of merit and time-barred.
Brief Facts:-
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition, as projected
by the petitioners, are that the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of
petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely Late Sh. M.K. Saproo, was offered a
residential plot measuring 50′ × 100′ under the ‘HIG Category’ in Ompora
Housing Colony, Budgam vide Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment dated
12.08.1985. Pursuant thereto, the allottee deposited an amount of
Rs.27,500/-, representing 50% of the tentative cost of the plot, in terms of
the conditions contained in the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment. The
balance amount was required to be paid in accordance with the terms and
conditions incorporated therein.
3. According to the petitioners, despite the deposit of the initial amount, no
further communication or demand was issued by the respondents
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 3 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
requiring the allottee to deposit the balance amount or complete the
formalities for execution of the agreement and delivery of possession. It is
the case of the petitioners that owing to the prevailing disturbed
conditions in the Kashmir Valley, the original allottee was compelled to
migrate from the Valley and, thereafter, submitted representations dated
20.11.2008 and 09.03.2009 requesting the respondents to intimate the
balance amount payable so that the same could be deposited and the
allotment could be processed.
4. In response thereto, the respondents issued communication dated
09.04.2009 informing the original allottee that his application had been
examined and found to be without merit and calling upon him to appear
before the office of the respondents along with the original allotment
papers and receipts for processing refund of the amount deposited by him.
Aggrieved thereof, the original allottee instituted OWP No. 1335/2009
before this Court challenging the aforesaid communication.
5. Upon issuance of notice in the said writ petition, this Court, vide interim
order dated 14.12.2009, directed that the communication dated 09.04.2009
shall remain in abeyance till further orders. During the pendency of the
writ petition, the original writ petitioner expired and, on an application
moved in that behalf, the present petitioners were brought on record as his
legal representatives.
6. The aforesaid writ petition ultimately came to be disposed of by this Court
vide judgment dated 28.10.2021, whereby the communication dated
09.04.2009 was quashed on the ground that the petitioners had been
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 4 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
condemned unheard in violation of the principles of natural justice. While
quashing the impugned communication, this Court directed the
respondents to reconsider and revisit the claim of the petitioners keeping
in view their offer and willingness to pay the remaining 50% of the cost of
the plot, while reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to recover the
cost of the plot at the rates prevalent in the year 2003.
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that after the pronouncement of the
aforesaid judgment, they approached the respondents for its
implementation and also served a legal notice dated 06.04.2022 calling
upon the respondents to comply with the directions issued by this Court.
However, instead of implementing the judgment in its true letter and
spirit, the respondents passed the impugned Order No. JKHB-115 of 2022
dated 10.08.2022 whereby the claim of the petitioners was again rejected
by holding the same to be devoid of merit and time-barred.
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed the present
writ petition, inter alia, contending that the impugned order is in the teeth
of the judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in the earlier round
of litigation, inasmuch as the respondents have reiterated the very grounds
which already stood considered and rejected by this Court instead of
undertaking a meaningful reconsideration in terms of the directions
contained in the said judgment.
9. The respondents have filed objections resisting the writ petition. It is
pleaded that the document dated 12.08.1985 was merely a Letter of
Intent/Offer of Allotment and not a formal letter of allotment and that the
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 5 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
original allottee failed to comply with the conditions stipulated therein by
not depositing the balance amount within the prescribed period.
Therefore, the offer consequently stood cancelled in terms of the
conditions of the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment itself. It is specific
stand of the respondents that the claim was reconsidered in compliance
with the judgment dated 28.10.2021 and rejected by a reasoned order by
observing that the plot intended to be allotted to the original allottee has
since been allotted to another eligible person after completion of the
requisite formalities.
Arguments on behalf of Petitioners:-
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Ms. Shivani Jalali alongwith
Ms. Ranjana Rajput, submitted that the controversy raised in the present
writ petition stood substantially concluded by the judgment dated
28.10.2021 rendered by this Court in OWP No.1335/2009, whereby the
communication dated 09.04.2009 came to be quashed on the ground that
the petitioners had been condemned unheard and the respondents were
directed to reconsider and revisit the claim of the petitioners keeping in
view their willingness to pay the balance 50% of the cost of the plot, while
reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to recover the cost at the rates
prevailing in the year 2003. It is argued that the said judgment has attained
finality, the same having never been challenged by the respondents.
Consequently, it is no longer open to the respondents to re-agitate issues
which already stood concluded in the earlier round of litigation.
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 6 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
11. It is further contended that instead of faithfully implementing the aforesaid
judgment, the respondents have passed the impugned order by reiterating
the very grounds which had already been rejected by this Court. According
to the learned counsel, the respondents have once again relied upon the
newspaper publication of the year 2003 and the alleged automatic
cancellation of the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment despite the fact that
this Court had already held that mere publication of a notice in the
newspaper could not amount to service upon the petitioner and that the
petitioners had been condemned unheard in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
12. Learned counsel further argued that the respondents were legally estopped
from reopening issues which had already attained finality by virtue of the
judgment dated 28.10.2021. Instead of acting in furtherance of the
directions issued by this Court by considering the willingness expressed
by the petitioners to pay the remaining amount at the rates prevailing in
the year 2003, the respondents have virtually reviewed the earlier
judgment by returning findings contrary thereto, thereby rendering the
exercise of reconsideration wholly illusory.
13. Learned counsel also submitted that the stand now sought to be projected
by the respondents that the plot had already been allotted to another
person is equally untenable. It is argued that the communication dated
09.04.2009 remained under an order of abeyance passed by this Court on
14.12.2009 throughout the pendency of OWP No.1335/2009 and was
ultimately quashed on 28.10.2021. Therefore, according to the learned
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 7 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
counsel, the respondents could not have lawfully proceeded to allot the
subject plot to any third person during the subsistence of the interim
protection granted by this Court.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have adopted
inconsistent stands inasmuch as, while contending in the present
proceedings that the original allottee had merely been issued a Letter of
Intent/Offer of Allotment, the objections filed by the respondents
themselves acknowledge that the allottee had failed to fulfil the conditions
of the allotment and that the allotment stood terminated. It is argued that
such inconsistent pleas expose the arbitrary manner in which the impugned
order has been passed.
Arguments on behalf of Respondents:-
15. Per contra, Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, appearing for the
respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that
the impugned Order No. JKHB-115 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022 has been
passed strictly in compliance with the judgment dated 28.10.2021 rendered
by this Court in OWP No.1335/2009. It is contended that, pursuant to the
directions issued by this Court, the claim of the petitioners was
reconsidered and revisited in its entirety and, upon due examination of the
relevant record and attendant circumstances, was found to be devoid of
merit, culminating in the passing of the impugned speaking order.
16. It is further submitted that the document dated 12.08.1985 issued in favour
of the husband of petitioner No.1 is merely a Letter of Intent/Offer of
Allotment and not a formal letter of allotment. It is argued that the said
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 8 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotmentis only indicative of the respondents’
intention to allot a plot subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated
therein and did not, by itself, confer any vested or enforceable right upon
the allottee. It is contended that a Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment is
merely an offer, which culminates into a concluded contract only upon due
acceptance in accordance with its terms and conditions. According to Mrs.
Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG, since the original allottee admittedly
failed to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated period, no
concluded contract ever came into existence between the parties.
17. It is also submitted that the original allottee had failed to comply with the
essential conditions incorporated in the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment
within the prescribed period, as a consequence whereof the Letter of
Intent/Offer of Allotment stood cancelled in terms of its own conditions. It
is further contended that, in the year 2003, the respondents had issued a
public notice through leading newspapers calling upon all persons who had
been issued Letters of Intent and had not completed the requisite formalities
to approach the Housing Board within the stipulated period, failing which
their claims would not be entertained. According to learned SeniorCounsel,
despite such opportunity, the original allottee neither approached the
respondents nor deposited the outstanding amount and, therefore, the
respondents were justified in treating the Letter of Intent/Offer of
Allotment as having lapsed.
18. It is further argued that the petitioners sought to assert their claim after an
inordinate and unexplained delay of more than two decades and, therefore,
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 9 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
the respondents had rightly held the claim to be hopelessly belated and
devoid of merit. It is submitted that the impugned order does not suffer
from any infirmity, inasmuch as the respondents have complied with the
directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation by
reconsidering the claim of the petitioners afresh.
19. It is also submitted that the plot in question is no longer available for
allotment, as the same already stands allotted in favour of another eligible
allottee after fulfilment of the requisite conditions. It is, therefore, argued
that even otherwise no effective relief, as prayed for by the petitioners, can
now be granted.
20. It is lastly contended that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance
with the provisions governing the allotment as well as the terms and
conditions contained in the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment and that the
impugned order neither suffers from any illegality nor any procedural
infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
Legal Analysis:-
21. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties at considerable
length and have perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.
22. The principal question which falls for consideration of this Court is whether
the respondents, while passing the impugned order dated 10.08.2022
purportedly in compliance with the judgment dated 28.10.2021, have
faithfully implemented the mandate of this Court or have travelled beyond
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 10 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
the scope of the directions issued therein by reopening issues which had
already attained finality.
23. Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the scope and import of the
judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that this Court had
quashed the communication dated 09.04.2009 primarily on the ground that
the original allottee had been condemned unheard and that the respondents
had failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice before depriving him
of the benefit flowing from the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment issued in
his favour. While setting aside the said communication, this Court directed
the respondents to “reconsider and revisit” the claim of the petitioners by
taking into account their willingness to deposit the remaining 50% of the
cost of the plot, while reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to
recover the cost of the plot at the rates prevailing in the year 2003. The
aforesaid judgment has admittedly attained finality and was never assailed
before any superior forum.
24. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce the operative part of the
judgment dated 28.10.2021, which reads as under:
“20. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid position, the petitioner can
be said to have been condemned unheard by the respondents in the
matter violating principles of natural justice. The impugned
communication thus is not legally tenable and is accordingly
quashed. Resultantly the respondents are directed to reconsider and
revisit the claim of the petitioners having regard to the offer made by
the petitioners in the representation that the petitioners are willing
and ready to pay the remaining amount of 50% toward the cost of the
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 11 of 212026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
plot. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to seek the cost of
the plot from the petitioners at the rates prevalent in the year 2003 i.e.,
the year notice is claimed to have been published in the newspaper by
the respondents.”
25. A plain reading of the aforesaid operative directions reveals that this Court
had consciously confined the scope of reconsideration to the willingness
expressed by the petitioners to deposit the balance amount payable towards
the cost of the plot while reserving liberty in favour of the respondents to
recover the cost at the rates prevailing in the year 2003. No liberty
whatsoever was reserved in favour of the respondents to reopen issues
relating to the cancellation of the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment, the
effect of the newspaper publication or the conduct of the original allottee,
all of which already stood concluded in the earlier round of litigation.
26. Once the judgment dated 28.10.2021 had attained finality, the respondents
were under a legal obligation to implement the same in its true letter and
spirit. Having accepted the said judgment without assailing the same before
any superior forum, it was no longer open to the respondents to reopen or
question the issues which already stood concluded therein. It is trite that an
authority, while acting in compliance with a judicial direction, cannot
exercise powers of an appellate authority over the judgment of the Court or
reopen issues which already stand concluded by the said judgment. The
exercise to be undertaken by the respondents was, therefore, confined to the
limited extent indicated by this Court, which was the reconsideration of the
petitioners’ claim in the light of their willingness to pay the balance amount
and nothing beyond.
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 12 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “RBF Rig Corporation, Mumbai vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai,”(2011) 3 SCC 573,
while emphasizing the obligation of subordinate authorities to implement
judicial directions which had attained finality, observed as under:
“25. We hasten to add, if for any reason, the subordinate authority is
of the view that the directions issued by the Court are contrary to
statutory provision or well-established principles of law, it can
approach the same Court with necessary application/petition for
clarification or modification or approach the superior forum for
appropriate reliefs. In the present case, as we have already noticed,
the respondents have not questioned the order passed by the High
Court, which order has reached finality. In such circumstances, we
cannot permit the adjudicating authority to circumvent the order
passed by the High Court.”
28. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision is founded upon the rule
that an authority, acting pursuant to a judicial direction, derives its jurisdiction
from the judgment itself and is, therefore, bound to remain within the
parameters delineated therein. Any exercise dehors those parameters would
amount to acting contrary to the judgment sought to be implemented.
29. A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 10.08.2022, however, reveals
that instead of confining themselves to acting in furtherance of the directions
issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the respondents have
proceededto revisit and adjudicate upon issues which had already been
examined in the earlier writ proceedings. The impugned order once again
proceeds on the premise that the original allottee had failed to deposit the
balance amount within the stipulated period, that the offer contained in the
Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment stood cancelled by operation of its own
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 13 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
terms, that due notice had been issued to the allottee through publication in
newspapers and consequently the claim of the petitioners was liable to be
rejected as being time-barred and devoid of merit.
30. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid approach adopted by
the respondents is legally unsustainable. The issues relating to the alleged
failure of the original allottee to comply with the conditions of the Letter of
Intent/Offer of Allotment, the effect of the newspaper publication, and the
consequential cancellation of the allotment had already been adjudicated in
detail while deciding the OWP No.1335/2009. This Court, while disposing
of the earlier writ petition, rejected the stand of the respondents and instead
quashed the communication dated 09.04.2009 with a consequential
direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioners. Having accepted the
judgment by the respondents without any demur and allowed it to attain
finality, the respondents were not competent to revive/reagitate the very
grounds/issues which stood concluded in the earlier proceedings.
31. The expression “reconsider and revisit”, as observed by this Court in the
judgment dated 28.10.2021, could not have been construed as conferring
liberty upon the respondents to review the correctness of the findings
already recorded by this Court. The said expression merely obligated the
respondents to undertake a fresh consideration confined to the willingness
expressed by the petitioners to deposit the balance amount and to
determine the modalities for implementation of the allotment in
accordance with the directions issued by this Court. The respondents, by
embarking upon an enquiry into matters which had already attained
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 14 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
finality, have clearly travelled beyond the four corners of the judgment
sought to be implemented.
32. It is a settled principle of judicial discipline that a judgment of a competent
Court binds the parties not only in respect of the operative directions but
also in respect of the issues necessarily decided therein. An administrative
authority cannot, under the guise of implementing a judicial order, render
nugatory the findings recorded by the Court or circumvent its mandate by
reiterating the very reasons which have already been disapproved or
rejected. Any such exercise strikes at the doctrine of finality of judicial
decisions and cannot receive the imprimatur of law.
33. This Court recently in “Principal,Woodland House School vs. Shakeel
Ahmad Malik,” CM(M) No. 191/2026, decided on 06.06.2026, while
highlighting the binding nature of judicial orders and the necessity of their
faithful implementation, held as under:
“55. This Court is of the considered opinion that once a
judicial order has been affirmed by the superior forums and
continues to hold the field, the same is required to be
obeyed and given effect to. Judicial orders are not intended
to remain confined to the record and must receive due
compliance from the parties against whom they operate.
Any other view would seriously undermine the authority of
Courts and the administration of justice.
56. Such repeated challenges to substantially concluded
issues cannot be encouraged. Judicial orders cannot be
permitted to be frustrated by filing one proceeding after
another. The rule of law demands obedience to judicial
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 15 of 212026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
orders unless they are stayed, modified or set aside by a
competent Court.”
34. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principle, a perusal of the
impugned order reveals that the respondents, while passing the said order,
have once again proceeded to examine whether the original allottee had
complied with the conditions of the Letter of Intent/Offer of Allotment,
whether the respondents had issued notices through publication in
newspapers and whether the allottee himself was responsible for non-
completion of the allotment process. These are precisely the issues which
formed the subject matter of adjudication in the earlier writ petition. Once
this Court had set aside the communication dated 09.04.2009 and directed
reconsideration of the claim of the petitioners, it was no longer open to the
respondents to resurrect the very grounds which had culminated in the
issuance of the said communication.
35. Another reason assigned in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of
the petitioners is that the subject plot had already been allotted in favour
of another eligible allottee. This ground, however, does not commend
acceptance. Significantly, no such plea appears to have been raised by the
respondents during the earlier round of litigation culminating in the
judgment dated 28.10.2021, despite the fact that the writ petition remained
pending before this Court for more than a decade and the respondents had
filed their objections therein. Had the plot already stood allotted to a third
party, nothing prevented the respondents from placing the said fact before
this Court in the earlier proceedings. Having failed to do so and after
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 16 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
passing of the judgment directing reconsideration of the petitioners‟
claim, the respondents cannot now be permitted to defeat the very object
of that judgment by relying upon a circumstance which was never pleaded
earlier.Besides, the communication dated 09.04.2009 had remained in
abeyance pursuant to the interim order dated 14.12.2009 passed by this
Court during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. In such
circumstances, the respondents were expected to place the complete
factual position before this Court if the subject plot had, in fact, been
allotted to any third party. Their failure to do so assumes considerable
significance while examining the validity of the impugned order.
36. Further,this Court, on various occasionsduring the course of the present
proceedings,directed the respondents to produce the original record
pertaining to the allotment in question and to disclose the particulars of
the alleged subsequent allotment. The matter was adjourned from time to
time to enable the respondents to comply with the said directions.
However, despite adequate opportunities, the respondents failed to place
the complete record before this Court. The failure of the respondents to
produce the original record despite repeated opportunities constrained this
Court to draw an adverse inference against them with regard to the plea of
subsequent allotment. Consequently, such a plea cannot now be permitted
to defeat or dilute the binding effect of the judgment dated 28.10.2021.
37. Another aspect which cannot escape the notice of this Court is the
inconsistent stand adopted by the respondents with regard to the very nature
of the document dated 12.08.1985. While, on the one hand, the respondents
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 17 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
seek to contend that the document dated 12.08.1985 was merely a Letter of
Intent which did not confer any enforceable right upon the original
petitioner, on the other hand, the objections filed by the respondents
themselves repeatedly refer to the original petitioner as an “allottee” and
proceed on the premise that the allotment stood terminated for alleged non-
fulfilment of its conditions.Such inconsistent stand taken by the respondents
not only detract from the credibility of the impugned decision but also
reinforce the conclusion that, instead of faithfully implementing the
judgment dated 28.10.2021, the respondents have attempted to justify a
decision which already stood quashed by this Court.
38. At this stage, it would also be profitable to reproduce the objections filed by
the respondents in the present writ petition, which reads as under:
“V. That it is reiterated that the allottee had not fulfilled the
conditions of the allotment letter which has resulted in
termination of the allotment in favour of Late Mr. M.K.
Saproo (husband of petitioner No. 1 herein) and the same
cannot be regularized/given effect to at this stage when the
plot in question has been allotted to some other eligible
person who has fulfilled the conditions of allotment.
2……. It is submitted that the Late Mr. M.K. Saproo
(husband of petitioner No. 1) along with other persons in
whose favour offer of allotment was issued was given due
notice but in-spite of said notice, he did not turn up and
failed tocomply with the conditions laid down in the letter of
intent within the stipulated period which constrained the
answeringrespondent to allot the said plot in favour of
eligible person next in queue and willing to fulfill the
allotment conditions. Hence the judgment of the Hon’ble
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 18 of 212026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
Court has been complied with in its letter and spirit and as
such the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.”
39. A plain reading of the aforesaid pleadings demonstrates that the
respondents have adopted inconsistent stands. While, on the one hand,
they seek to contend that the document dated 12.08.1985 was merely a
Letter of Intent and that no formal allotment had ever come into existence,
on the other hand, they have themselves repeatedly described Late Mr.
M.K. Saproo as an “allottee” and justified the impugned order on the
premise that the allotment stood terminated for non-fulfilment of its
conditions. The respondents cannot simultaneously deny the existence of
an allotment and defend its alleged cancellation. Such inconsistent pleas
not only undermine the credibility of the defence set up by the
respondents but also fortify the conclusion that, instead of faithfully
implementing the judgment dated 28.10.2021in its true letter and spirit,
the respondents have sought to reopen and justify the very issues which
already stood concluded by the said judgment.
40. Underlying the foregoing discussion is the doctrine of finality of judicial
decisions, which constitutes one of the fundamental attributes of the
administration of justice. Once a competent Court has adjudicated upon an
issue and the judgment has attained finality, the parties thereto, including
statutory authorities, are bound by the findings recorded therein. An
administrative authority cannot assume unto itself the role of an appellate
forum over a judgment rendered by a constitutional Court. Any attempt to
reopen issues already concluded by a judicial determination would not only
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 19 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
be contrary to settled principles of law but would also erode the majesty of
the judicial process.
41. The aforesaid principle has recently been reiterated by this Court in “Ms.
Hajira vs. UT of J&K and others,” WP(C) No.1338/2024, decided on
25.06.2026, wherein it was held as under:
“33. It is trite that a judicial determination which has
attained finality cannot be permitted to be circumvented by
adopting an indirect device. Permitting such a course would
render the doctrine of finality otiose and would strike at the
very root of judicial discipline.”
42. This Court is also unable to persuade itself to accept the submission of the
respondents that the impugned order constitutes due compliance with the
judgment dated 28.10.2021. The concept of compliance does not envisage a
mechanical or cosmetic exercise. Compliance must be real, meaningful and
in consonance with both the letter and the spirit of the judgment sought to
be implemented. Where an authority, instead of acting within the
parameters laid down by the Court, embarks upon a fresh adjudication on
matters already concluded, such an exercise cannot be construed as
compliance in the eyes of law.
43. Another aspect which deserves notice is that the respondents have rejected
the claim of the petitioners by holding the same to be time-barred. This
reasoning, in the considered opinion of this Court, is equally misconceived.
Once the earlier communication dated 09.04.2009 had been quashed by this
Court and the respondents had been directed to reconsider the claim of the
petitioners afresh, the respondents could not have defeated the very purpose
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 20 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
of the judgment by reiterating that the claim itself was barred by limitation.
Acceptance of such a contention would amount to rendering the judgment
dated 28.10.2021 wholly otiose and ineffective, a consequence which is
impermissible in law.
44. It is trite that every judicial order must be read as a whole and implemented
in its true perspective. A party cannot be permitted to read some part of the
judgment in isolation while completely ignoring the object and purpose
sought to be achieved thereby. The impugned order, when tested on the
touchstone of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of
litigation, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion
45. For all that has been discussed hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation in
holding that the respondents have clearly travelled beyond the mandate of
the judgment dated 28.10.2021. Instead of confining themselves to the
limited exercise of reconsidering the petitioners’ willingness to deposit the
balance amount towards the cost of the plot, they have reopened and re-
adjudicated upon issues which had already attained finality and
stoodconcludedby this Court and have virtually exercised the power of an
appellate authority over the earlier judgment. The impugned Order No.
JKHB-115 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022 is, therefore, legally unsustainable
and is liable to be quashed.
46. Viewed thus, and for the reasons elaborated hereinabove, the present writ
petition merits acceptance and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned
WP(C) No. 198/2023 Page 21 of 21
2026:JKLHC-JMU:2324
order No. JKHB-115 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022, passed by the Managing
Director, Jammu and Kashmir Housing Board, is hereby quashed.
47. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioners
afresh, strictly in accordance with and in the light of the judgment dated
28.10.2021 passed by this Court in OWP No.1335/2009. While undertaking
the said exercise, the respondents shall remain confined to the parameters
laid down in the aforesaid judgment and shall refrain from reopening issues
which already stand concluded therein. A fresh, reasoned and speaking
order shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a
period of four weeks from the date a copy of this judgment alongwith writ
petition and the annexures are made available to the respondents.
48. Disposed of along with all connected applications, if any.
(WasimSadiqNargal)
Judge
Jammu:
28.07.2026
SHAMMI/P. SECYWhether the judgment is speaking : Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes
