Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Srinagar vs Zahoor Ahmad Kambay S/O Mohammad Sultan … on 23 July, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
.......
LPA no.278/2025
Reserved on: 14.07. 2026
Pronounced on: 23.07.2026
Uploaded on: 23.07.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full
Sabeena Age 42 years D/o Ghulam Ahmad Bhat R/o Sanat Nagar,
Srinagar
.......Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. J.P. Gandhi, Advocate
with Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate
Versus
1. Zahoor Ahmad Kambay S/o Mohammad Sultan Kambay
2. Ali Mohammad Rather S/o Haji Ghulam Mohammad Rather
3. Ghulam Ahmad Bhat S/o Haji Sanu ullah Bhat
4. Haji Mohammad Sidiq Bhat S/o Ghulam Mohammad Bhat
5. Mohammad Maqbool Ganie S/o Abdul Aziz Ganie
All Residents of Wakura, District Ganderbal
......Contesting Respondents
6. UT of J&K through Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Revenue
Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu
7. Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal,
8. Tehsildar, Wakura, Ganderbal
9. Naib Tehsildar, Wakura, Ganderbal
10.Patwari Halqa Rakhi Rabitar, Wakura, Ganderbal
11.Safiya Akhtar W/o Ghulam Ahmad Bhat R/o House no.247,
Rawalpora, Housing Colony, Bypass, Srinagar
....Proforma Respondents
Through: Mr. G. M. Bhat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
Page 1
LPA no.278/2025
1. This intra court appeal arises from an order and judgement dated 26th
September 2025, passed by learned Single Judge [“Writ Court”] in
CM(M) no.276/2023 titled ‘Zahoor Ahmad Kambay and others v.
Sabeena and others‘, whereby the Writ Court has set-aside the Award
dated 6th December 2014, passed by the National Lok Adalat and
restored the suit titled Sabeena v. State and others, to its original
number to the Trial court. The Writ Court has also impleaded
respondents 1 to 5 herein (contesting respondents) as party defendants
in the said suits. The Writ Court has further clarified that nothing said
in the judgement impugned would be deemed to be an expression of
any opinion qua the claim of either of the parties and the suit shall be
dealt with by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the instant appeal as narrated
in the judgement impugned are that contesting respondents, having no
direct interest in the suit property, i.e., land measuring 147 Kanals and
04 Marlas falling under Survey no.495/405 situate at Mouza Rakhi
Rabitar Tehsil Lar District Ganderbal (hereinafter referred to as
“subject land”), filed CM(M) no.276/2023 in representative capacity
for seeking setting-aside of the Lok Adalat Award bearing no.154 dated
6th December 2014 titled Sabeena v. State and others. The award of Lok
Adalat, whereby appellant was declared owner of subject land, was
assailed by contesting respondents on the ground that same had been
obtained by appellant in collusion and after playing fraud with the
process of law. It was pleaded by contesting respondents herein that a
suit was filed by appellant for declaration and mandatory injunction
against respondents 6 to 11 on the basis of an agreement to sell dated
Page 2
LPA no.278/2025
15th July 2010, qua the subject land executed in her favour by one
Sansar Singh adopted son of Late Gen. Bagh Singh resident of
Raghunathpora, Jammu through his attorney holder, namely, Safia
Akhter, arrayed as respondent no.11 in this appeal.
3. The suit was apparently collusive in nature and, therefore, the attorney
of alleged owner of subject land, namely, Sansar Singh, was alone
arrayed as party defendant in the suit. The suit was not contested rather
the claim made by appellant herein was admitted. The matter was,
however, settled in National Lok Adalat organized by District Legal
Services Authority on 6th December 2014. In terms of the Award passed
by Lok Adalat, the appellant was declared owner in possession of
subject land on the basis of admission made by her mother, namely,
Safia Akhter (respondent no.11 herein) on the basis of power of
attorney obtained by her from alleged owner, namely, Sansar Singh.
4. Since the subject matter of the suit and the award dated 6 th December
2014 passed by National Lok Adalat, Ganderbal, was a big chunk of
land measuring more than 147 Kanals and could have been possibly put
to use for public purpose, the contesting respondents approached this
Court by seeking permission to file the petition in representative
capacity and threw challenge to the award in CM(M) no.276/2023. The
petition was contested by appellant herein. The Writ Court, having
considered the petition along with WP(C) no.236/2024, came to the
conclusion that the award passed by National Lok Adalat, Ganderbal,
dated 6th December 2024, declaring appellant owner in possession of
subject land, was collusive and against public policy and, therefore,
untenable in law. Consequently, the Writ Court set-aside the award and
Page 3
LPA no.278/2025
restored the suit to its original number before the Trial Court. The
contesting respondents (writ petitioners) were impleaded as party
defendants in the suit filed by appellant.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us and has challenged the
impugned judgement of the Writ Court on multiple grounds. The one
ground of challenge that is vehemently urged by Mr. J. P. Gandhi,
learned counsel appearing for appellant, is that contesting respondents,
who filed the petition before the Writ Court, have no right, title or
concern with the subject land and, therefore, lack locus standi. It is
contended that the Writ Court, without going through this aspect of the
matter, permitted the contesting respondents to file the petition in
representative capacity and interfered with Lok Adalat award passed
inter se appellant and proforma respondents. It is also the contention of
Mr. Gandhi that Lok Adalat award, which is always passed with the
consent of parties, is not appealable nor can it be assailed by invoking
Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on
record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgement impugned
passed by the Writ Court suffers from no legal or factual error.
7. The controversy started with the appellant filing a civil suit for
declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction against
respondents. To put it straight, the proforma respondents 6 to 10
(defendants 1 to 5 in the suit are officials of Revenue Department),
whereas proforma respondent no.11 (defendant no.6 in the suit) is
mother of appellant (plaintiff). The declaration was sought on the basis
of title allegedly acquired by appellant on the edifice of sale agreement
Page 4
LPA no.278/2025
executed by Mr. Sansar Singh on 15th July 2010 in favour of appellant
and one Mst. Syed Yasmeen. The agreement to sell was with respect to
the entire subject matter.
8. Indisputably, no sale deed was ever executed by Mr. Sansar Singh till
filing of the suit in the year 2014 or thereafter. From the frame of the
suit filed by appellant, it is abundantly clear that no prayer was made
by appellant for specific performance of contract as was perhaps the
remedy available to appellant.
9. Interestingly, even the proposed vendor, Mr. Sansar Singh, was not
arrayed as party defendant in the suit. The appellant, very cleverly and
with a view to play fraud, impleaded Ms. Safia Akhter as contesting
defendant along with the official defendants on the strength of power
of attorney allegedly executed by Sansar Singh in her favour. This
power of attorney dated 15th July 2010, as it comes out from its reading,
was only in respect of land measuring 129 Kanals and 01 Marla. Be that
as it may, it seems that Safia Akhter was in collusion with appellant
and, therefore, chose not to contest the suit. The suit was, however,
given quietus by National Lok Adalat in terms of its award dated 6 th
December 2014. The National Lok Adalat, without appreciating that
the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction on the basis of
agreement to sell, could not have become the basis of transferring a
huge chunk of land measuring more than 147 Kanals, that too, without
execution of any sale deed and without payment of requisite stamp
duty. It did not realize that the suit was collusive in nature and aimed at
defeating the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the
Registration Act and the Stamp Duty Act, and that such a suit, being
Page 5
LPA no.278/2025
opposed to the public policy, could not have been decreed. The National
Lok Adalat did not even bother to find out as to whether the proposed
vendor, named as Mr. Sansar Singh was dead or alive.
10.We are in complete agreement with the Writ Court that the legal
position is well settled that any contract of sale (agreement to sell),
which is not a registered deed of conveyance, would fall short of
requirements of Section 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and
that mere agreement to sell would not confer any title or transfer any
interest in immoveable property.
11.The settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and various High Courts is not debatable. If a compromise merely
recognizes or declares pre-existing rights of a party in a property, that
is already subject matter of a suit, no registration or stamp duty is
required under Section 17 (2)(vi) of the Registration Act and the Lok
Adalat award/decree passed upon such suit would, of course, be valid
and enforceable. However, if the compromise between the parties
creates a new right for the first time or is effectively a sale or transfer
of property from one person to another without there being any pre-
existing right, the decree cannot be permitted to be used to avoid stamp
duty and registration. Therefore, if the Lok Adalat award is used as a
substitute for the sale deed to transfer ownership of immoveable
property from one person to another, the decree would be hit by Section
23 of the Contract Act and would be void. Similarly, an award, which
is collusive or fraudulent and is intended to evade the stamp duty and
registration requirements, it would be opposed to public policy and
cannot be legally enforceable.
Page 6
LPA no.278/2025
12.In Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another v. State of Maharashtra and
others, (1993) 4 SCC 216, the Hon’ble Supreme Court once again had
an occasion to deal with the question of collusion in judicial
proceedings. Placing reliance upon Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao,
AIR 1956 SC 593, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 09 held
thus:-
“9. In Nagubai Ammal and ors. v. B. Shamma Rao and ors.
(1956) SCR 451 at 463, this Court held that collusion in
judicial proceedings is a secret arrangement between two
person that the one should institute a suit against the other in
order to obtain the decision of a judicial tribunal for some
sinister purpose. In such a proceedings, the claim put forward
is fictitious, the contest over it is unreal, and the decree passed
therein is a mere mask having the similitude of a judicial
determination and worn by the parties with the object of
confounding third parties. This was reiterated in Roop Chand
Gupta v. Raghuvanshi Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (1964) 7 SCR 761
at 763, in which this Court held that the collusion is an
improper act done by an improper refraining from doing an
act, for a dishonest purpose. In these two cases this Court set
aside the collusive decree obtained by the parties. Collusion,
thus, is a foundation to put forward a format of judicial
process and a pretext of contest which in effect is unreal and
a force and the decree or order obtained on its basis is a mere
mask having similitude of judicial determination with the
object of confounding third parties. The offending order is
vitiated by collusion and formed foundation for election to the
committee of the society.”
13. Admittedly, in the instant case, the only suit which could have been
filed by appellant on the strength of agreement to sell could have been
a suit for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for
damages compensation. Such a suit could have been filed only against
proposed vendor, i.e., Sansar Singh in the present case. The suit for
declaration and mandatory injunction was apparently filed by appellant,
by arraying the alleged power of attorney of Sansar Singh only, with a
Page 7
LPA no.278/2025
view to avoid payment of stamp duty and requirements of Registration
Act.
14. We have serious doubts whether on the date of filing of the suit, the
proposed vendor shown in the agreement to sell, namely, Sansar Singh,
was alive or dead. The suit directly against power of attorney without
arraying the proposed vendor was itself not maintainable.
Unfortunately, the National Lok Adalat failed to consider this important
aspect of the matter and hurriedly passed the award by merely taking
note of the fact that two opposite parties had entered into compromise.
It needs no reiteration to say that whether it is civil court or Lok Adalat,
a decree, which is opposed to the public policy and ratifies a fraud,
cannot be passed. Reckless passing of such decrees by Lok Adalats and
by some civil courts, have the effect of defrauding the public exchequer
immensely. By this machination, several landed properties have been
transferred from one person to another without execution of sale deeds,
without complying with the Registration Act and payment of stamp
duty, and the collusive decrees have been passed and, on the basis,
thereof mutations have been attested by revenue officers.
15.Having said that we are of the considered opinion that the judgement
impugned passed by the Writ Court deserves to be upheld to the extent
it declares the award of National Lok Adalat dated 6 th December 2014
null and void.
16.We, however, are not inclined to uphold the impugned judgement to the
extent of directing the impleadment of contesting respondents (writ
petitioners) as party defendants in the suit filed by appellant. We,
however, leave it to the contesting respondents to approach the Trial
Page 8
LPA no.278/2025
Court and file an appropriate application for impleadment, which if
filed shall be considered and disposed of by the Trial Court on its merits
and after affording opportunity to contest the same to the appellant
herein. With a slight modification as aforesaid, the judgement
impugned is upheld and the appeal disposed of accordingly.
17.Disposed of.
(Mohd Yousuf Wani) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Chief Justice (Acting)
Srinagar
23.07.2026
Ajaz Ahmad, Secy
Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No
Page 9
LPA no.278/2025
