SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Thursday, November 07, 2024
Printed For: Mr. Raja Sripathi Rao P
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OWP No. 2317/2018
Khati v. State of J&K
2018 SCC OnLine J&K 979
In the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir†
(BEFORE SANJEEV KUMAR, J.)
Mst. Khati
v.
State of J&K & Ors.
OWP No. 2317/2018
Decided on December 14, 2018
Appearance:
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate
For the respondent(s): None
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJEEV KUMAR, J.:— The petitioner claims that she is owner in exclusive
possession of land measuring 5 marlas falling under khasra no. 856 min in village
Kachwarai. She further submits that respondent no. 5, who happens to be her step
son tried to dispossess her in order to grab the aforesaid piece of land. The petitioner
approached the revenue authorities and the matter was referred to Tehsildar
Khansahib for verification. It is claimed that Tehsildar Khansahib after due verification
found that the petitioner who was in exclusive possession of the land had been forcibly
dispossessed by the private respondent. This made the petitioner to approach office of
the Dy. Commissioner, Budgam who took cognizance of the matter and directed the
Tehsildar Khansahib to restore the possession of the land under reference to the
petitioner.
2. The short grievance projected by the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid order
of the Dy. Commissioner, the respondents 4 and 5 have not acted and have not
restored the possession of the subject land in her favour.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Undoubtedly,
the dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 6 essentially relates to
possession of land and, therefore, adjudication whereof would necessarily entail the
determination of disputed question of facts. It is reiterated that such civil disputes
between the private parties relating to the possession and title of immovable property
is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Section
103/104 of the State Constitution read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has rightly approached the revenue authorities in this regard and, as
stated, the Dy. Commissioner too has taken cognizance of the grievance projected by
the petitioner and has directed the Tehsildar to take follow up action. In case it is
grievance of the petitioner that the Tehsildar is not acting in the matter, she is well
within her rights to approach the Dy. Commissioner again for issuance of appropriate
effective orders so that grievance of the petitioner is redressed. The remedy chosen by
the petitioner by way of invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is totally
misconceived.
4. The Supreme Court of India in its recent judgment dated 03.12.2018 rendered in
Civil Appeal No. 11759 of 2018 titled Roshina T v. Abdul Azeez K.T, has once again
cautioned against the entertainment of the writ petitions involving adjudication of
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Thursday, November 07, 2024
Printed For: Mr. Raja Sripathi Rao P
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
disputed questions of facts relating to possession and title of immovable property
between the private parties.
5. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is found not maintainable and same is,
accordingly, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Dy.
Commissioner or even to the higher authorities in the revenue hierarchy for redressal
of her grievance.
———
†
Principal Bench at Srinagar
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
