Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Dismissal of Writ Petitions on Property Title Disputes
Court Reaffirms Civil Court's Jurisdiction over Disputed Property Ownership Claims, Dismissing Writ Petitions Seeking Restoration of Possession and Compensation
In a recent judgment dated October 6, 2025, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed appeals challenging the dismissal of writ petitions concerning property title disputes. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem, ruled that complex factual disputes related to property ownership cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and emphasized the need for civil proceedings to resolve such matters.
The appeals, filed by Marlene Jhan and others, arose from a common judgment by the Writ Court that dismissed petitions seeking restoration of possession and compensation for alleged unauthorized construction on a piece of land claimed by the petitioners. The land, measuring 7735 square feet, was said to have been purchased by the predecessor-in-interest, Mohammad Aslam Phalgaroo, under a registered sale deed dated June 22, 1999. The petitioners alleged that the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others trespassed and commenced construction of a commercial complex, disregarding their ownership rights.
However, the Writ Court found that the sale deed lacked specific details, such as survey numbers and identifiable location, making it difficult to ascertain the exact property involved. Consequently, it ruled that the writ jurisdiction was inappropriate for resolving disputed questions of fact regarding property title, directing that such disputes be resolved through a title suit in a civil court.
In the appeal, the petitioners contended that the Writ Court's findings effectively invalidated the registered sale deed and disregarded their ownership rights, which had been duly conferred by the sale deed. They argued that the title over the property should be recognized based on the registered instrument, and challenged the actions of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar, in canceling revenue entries related to the land.
The respondents maintained that the land was state-owned, recorded as "Sarkar" in the revenue documents, and that the revenue entries in question had been rectified. They argued that the construction was legally sanctioned and the land was handed over to the Srinagar Municipal Corporation for development.
Analyzing the case, the High Court agreed with the Writ Court's conclusion that the sale deed lacked the necessary particulars to identify the property, reinforcing the need for civil proceedings to adjudicate such disputes. It held that the writ jurisdiction was not suited for examining intricate questions of fact requiring evidence, and emphasized that the proper remedy lies in a civil court.
The court also dismissed the petitioners' request for compensation and damages, noting that such relief requires evidence and cannot be assessed in a writ petition. It reiterated the settled legal principle that where serious factual disputes and questions of title arise, writ proceedings under Article 226 are not the appropriate remedy.
Ultimately, the High Court found no error in the Writ Court's judgment, affirming that the dismissal of the writ petitions was warranted. The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit, with all interim directions vacated.
Bottom Line:
Disputed questions of fact regarding property title and ownership cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Proper remedy lies in a title suit before a Civil Court.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Property Law - Registered Sale Deed
