Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Manga Ram And Another vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 4 July, 2026
Sr. No. 86
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No:- WP(C) No. 1984/2026
CAV No 1906/2026
Manga Ram and Another .... Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate
( Through Virtual Mode) with
Ms. Himani Khajuria, Advocate
Vs
UT of J&K and Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through:
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
04.07.2026
1. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, it appears
that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court
challenging the order passed by the Tehsildar in proceedings initiated for
partition under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue
Act.
2. It is not in dispute that, under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act, the
Tehsildar is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide
proceedings for partition of joint holdings at the instance of one or more
co-sharers. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners
is that the partition proceedings culminating in the impugned order stand
vitiated on account of non-compliance with Rule 3 of the Partition Rules,
2
which, according to the petitioners, mandates that every application for
partition must be accompanied by all the requisite documents.
3. Having considered the submission, this Court is, prima facie, unable to
accept the contention that Rule 3 is couched in mandatory terms. A plain
reading of the said Rule indicates that where the Tehsildar finds the
application to be incomplete or deficient in any respect, he is empowered
to return the same to the applicant for removal of such deficiencies. The
Rule, therefore, does not, prima facie, render the proceedings void merely
because all documents were not initially annexed with the application.
4. The impugned order substantially determines the rights of the parties in
respect of the property in question. Such an order is appealable under
Section 112 of the Land Revenue Act, which provides that every decree
passed in partition proceedings shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil
Court of first instance and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in
Section 11 of the Act, be appealable before the District Judge or High
Court. While Section 11 provides for appeals against orders of Revenue
Officers in the manner prescribed therein, Section 112 specifically
governs decrees passed in partition proceedings. Thus, the order passed by
the Tehsildar in exercise of his original jurisdiction is subject to a
statutory appeal before the competent appellate forum.
5. It is well settled that where an equally efficacious statutory remedy is
available, this Court would ordinarily decline to exercise its extraordinary
writ jurisdiction, unless the impugned action is shown to be wholly
without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, reiterated that the
proceedings suffer from violation of Rule 3 of the Partition Rules. As
3
already observed, the said Rule is not, prima facie, mandatory in nature.
Moreover, any procedural irregularity allegedly committed during the
course of the proceedings stands merged in the final order, which is itself
appealable under the statutory scheme. Such grievances can appropriately
be examined by the appellate authority and do not warrant interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. Further, the impugned order records that notice of the partition
proceedings had been duly served upon the petitioners, who failed to
appear despite service, whereafter the proceedings were conducted ex
parte. Consequently, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the impugned
order suffers from any violation of the principles of natural justice so as to
justify invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition. At this stage, when confronted with the
availability of the statutory remedy, learned counsel for the petitioners
seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the
appropriate remedy available under law. Learned counsel further prays
that the petitioners may be protected against dispossession for a
reasonable period so as to enable them to approach the competent
appellate forum.
9. The prayer is considered. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy
available under law. It is further directed that, for a period of two weeks
from today, or until the petitioners approach the competent appellate
forum and seek appropriate interim relief, whichever is earlier, the parties
shall maintain status quo with regard to possession of the property in
4
question. It is, however, made clear that this protection shall automatically
cease upon expiry of the aforesaid period or upon the passing of any order
by the appellate authority, whichever occurs earlier.
10. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the controversy, and all questions are left open to be considered by the
competent appellate authority.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
Jammu
04.07.2026
Javid Iqbal.
