Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates: Revenue Authorities Cannot Proceed When Civil Court is Already Seized of the Dispute

Shivaji Rathore 12-Dec-2025

In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial discipline between parallel forums, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that revenue authorities must step aside once a civil court has assumed jurisdiction over a property dispute. The judgment came in a Kupwara land-pathway matter, where both parties had simultaneously approached different forums, leading to what the Court termed a classic case of “parallel adjudicatory tracks”. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Farooq Ahmad Sheikh and others, emphasised that the primacy of the civil court cannot be diluted by allowing revenue authorities to continue adjudication on issues already sub judice before a competent civil forum. The Court’s message was direct: when civil rights over immovable property are being examined by a civil court, revenue authorities must “lay their hands off”.


Parallel Proceedings Cannot Co-Exist:- Justice Nargal made it clear that the dispute was not merely about land demarcation or removal of obstruction. What stood out was the violation of the fundamental principle that two forums cannot simultaneously adjudicate the same controversy.

The judgment reiterates:

“The jurisdiction of Civil Court is superior and revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon such issues when the same are already before a Civil Court. The principle against parallel proceedings is settled.”

This pronouncement is consistent with the Court’s recent view in Abdul Rashid Khan v. UT of J&K, where it had declared that revenue authorities must defer their proceedings once a civil court is seized of the subject matter.

Background: Kupwara Link Road Dispute

The case originated from a complaint alleging that the petitioners had obstructed a public link road laid by the Rural Development Department. Acting on the complaint, the Deputy Commissioner ordered removal of the obstruction. This was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner and subsequently by the Financial Commissioner. However, the turning point was that a civil suit on the same issue was already pending before the Court of Munsiff, Sogam. On 12 July 2024, the civil court had even passed a restraint order prohibiting the petitioners from interfering with the pathway. Despite this, the revenue authorities continued their proceedings and passed orders potentially conflicting with the civil court’s injunction.

High Court’s Observations

Justice Nargal noted that not only were the petitioners aware of the civil court’s stay order, but the order had also been noted by the appellate and revisional revenue authorities. Yet, the petitioners deliberately withheld this fact from the High Court. Calling the concealment “wilful and deliberate”, the High Court imposed ₹50,000/- as costs, payable jointly by the petitioners.

The Court remarked that:- simultaneous proceedings before civil and revenue forums create a real danger of conflicting decisions, the law consciously discourages such parallel routes, civil court jurisdiction in matters of title, possession and civil rights is inherently superior. Most importantly, the Court held that parties cannot be permitted to take conflicting routes to achieve the same objective, particularly when the matter is directly and substantially in issue before a civil court.

Civil Court to Decide the Dispute Independently Concluding the judgment, Justice Nargal directed that: all grievances must be pursued before the civil court already seized of the matter, and the civil court shall proceed independently, uninfluenced by any observations in the writ judgment. This judgment is an important reaffirmation of judicial discipline and a reminder that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to override or run parallel to the civil court when civil rights over property are in dispute.

Case Title: Farooq Ahmed Sheikh vs. Financial Commissioner Revenue
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Judge: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

• Speedy trial is right of accuse, bail to be granted
  State should not oppose bail on the ground that offence is of serious nature when they can’t ensure speedy trial. The bail application was earlier filled in High court of Bombay of 5 Feb 2024, where hon’ble hight court rejected to release accuse on bail in UAPA case.When bail application was taken up for hearing in supreme court on 3 July, both the council’s appearing on the behalf of NIA and state were present and was praying for time. But the hon’ble court rejected the prayer and decided the matter on merits. The accuse was in jail from last 4… Read more: Speedy trial is right of accuse, bail to be granted
• J&K HC Court Emphasis Limited Scope of Framing of Charges in Criminal Trial,Quashed Corruption Chargesheet
  In a significant judgment reaffirming the legal threshold for framing charges in criminal proceedings, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that courts must rely solely on the material submitted by the prosecution when evaluating whether charges should be framed. The Court also cautioned against transforming this preliminary stage into a “mini trial.”Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the matter, observed that: “At the stage of framing of charge, the court need only determine whether the evidence collected by the prosecution creates a presumption of guilt. Even a strong suspicion is enough to proceed.”Relying on the Supreme… Read more: J&K HC Court Emphasis Limited Scope of Framing of Charges in Criminal Trial,Quashed Corruption Chargesheet
• 
  J&K Homes and Shops Rent Control Act, 1996
  Jammu Kashmir Homes and shops Rent control Act, 1966 History, Object and scope. This blog is about history, objective and scope of jk homes and shops control act. History In jammu and Kashmir their was a circular (named as circular no. 136) which governed the relationship between landlord and tenant, the circular was sanctioned in year 1894. By virtue of this circular the judicial courts in jammu and Kashmir got a power to take cases with related to eviction of tenant, to give possession of house to the landlord when tenant go away with locked house without any notice to… Read more: J&K Homes and Shops Rent Control Act, 1996
• Basic Principle of Interpretation:- Criminal Trial and Penal Statute
  1. Presumption of innocence In the Indian criminal justice system, a fundamental premise is that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This principle places the burden of proof entirely on the prosecution. Unless the prosecution can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, the court cannot convict the accused. This foundational safeguard ensures that no individual is punished without lawful justification. Another cornerstone of criminal law interpretation is that any ambiguity in the evidence must be resolved in favour of the accused. If the material on record supports two possible views—one pointing to guilt and the other… Read more: Basic Principle of Interpretation:- Criminal Trial and Penal Statute
• 
  Definition under section 2 of j&k homes and rent control act
  DEFINITIONS; CONTROLLER (Section:2 clause 1) Controller means an officer appointed by the Government(substituted in place of Revenue Minister by Act XVI of 1978. Section 2) as such for the performance of the duties assigned by this Act to the Controller in any Particular area. Section 17 of the Act empowers the Government to appoint by a notification a person to be the Controller for any area or part of the area to which the Act extends to exercise and discharge the duties conferred and imposed upon the Controller by or under the Act. example, by a notification dated 13th of… Read more: Definition under section 2 of j&k homes and rent control act
• 
  Provisions related to rent section 3 to 10 fair rent and fixation of fair rent jammu kashmir homes rent control act 1996
  Before coming directly on section 3 of the act let’s first understand the definition of Fair Rent (under section 2(2) of this act) Section 2, Sub-section 2 gives an exhaustive definition of the words ‘fair-rent’. According to this definition fair rent in respect of any house or shop means (a) fair rent determined in accordance with the provisions of Schedule ‘A’; (b) where rent has been fixed under section 8, when an application is made for such purpose. Section 3 ;- If the tenant pays any amount other then rent to the landlord that shall be irrecoverable under section 3… Read more: Provisions related to rent section 3 to 10 fair rent and fixation of fair rent jammu kashmir homes rent control act 1996
• 
  Suit and proceeding for eviction section 11 -13
  SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR EVICTION
  In this blog you will read about rights of tenant against eviction from section 11 to section 13 which include section 11(a),(b) section 12, 12(a) section 13.
  Contents of the article :- 1. Protection of the tenant against the eviction.  2. Restoration of possession of defense person Section 11a 3. Recovery of Possession of Residential Building by Railway persons (11-B) 4.When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction (Section12) 5. Restoration of possession to the tenant in the event of fire:Section 12-A: 6. When the tenant is entitled for restoration of possession (section 13) Under Section 11-13 of j&k home and rent control act 1966  various rights with relation to possession , against eviction are granted to tenant. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 has two parts. The… Read more: Suit and proceeding for eviction section 11 -13<br> SUITS AND PROCEEDINGS FOR EVICTION<br>In this blog you will read about rights of tenant against eviction from section 11 to section 13 which include section 11(a),(b) section 12, 12(a) section 13.
• 
  J&K & Ladakh High Court Issues Notice on Plea for Urgent Bye-Elections in Nagrota and Budgam
  Jammu, :- The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has sought responses from the Union of India and other respondents on a petition demanding immediate, time-bound bye-elections for the vacant Assembly constituencies of Nagrota and Budgam. The petitioner appearing in person (Harsh Dev Singh), backed by his political party to contest the Nagrota seat, argued that the delay in conducting elections is denying citizens their constitutional right to representation. During the proceedings, the Court issued notices to all respondents. Mr. Vishal Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India, accepted notice for the Union of India. Ms. Mrinal, Advocate, accepted notice… Read more: J&K & Ladakh High Court Issues Notice on Plea for Urgent Bye-Elections in Nagrota and Budgam
• 
  Supreme Court Lays Down Key Principles for Granting Mandatory Injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act
  Date of Judgment: July 14, 2025Case Title: Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. vs. Nirmala Devi(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7707 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15148 of 2017) The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA) is a discretionary and exceptional remedy, which can only be granted upon the breach of a clearly enforceable legal obligation. Delivering the judgment, Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan emphasised that before granting such relief, the court must be satisfied that the plaintiff has… Read more: Supreme Court Lays Down Key Principles for Granting Mandatory Injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act
• 
  PRINCIPLES Laid DOWN BY SUPREME COURT on Condoning the delay:- The Law Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Understanding the Law of Limitation in India
  Introduction One of the fundamental principles in legal jurisprudence is the maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt” — the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. The Law of Limitation in India is not merely a technicality; it reflects the legislative intent to ensure that disputes are brought before the court within a reasonable time frame. This principle safeguards the interest of society at large by bringing an end to litigation and preventing stale claims. Purpose of Limitation Law The object of limitation is clear:-  litigation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. As the Supreme Court… Read more: PRINCIPLES Laid DOWN BY SUPREME COURT on Condoning the delay:- The Law Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Understanding the Law of Limitation in India
• 
  Supreme Court Observes Need to Consider ‘Ground Realities’ in Plea for Restoration of Statehood to Jammu & Kashmir
  New Delhi, August 14 — The Supreme Court of India, while hearing an application seeking directions for the restoration of statehood to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, observed that the “ground realities” of the region cannot be ignored, citing incidents such as the recent Pahalgam terrorist attack. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice B.R. Gavai, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a Miscellaneous Application filed in the disposed of matter In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution, in which the apex court had upheld the abrogation of the erstwhile state’s special status. Background… Read more: Supreme Court Observes Need to Consider ‘Ground Realities’ in Plea for Restoration of Statehood to Jammu & Kashmir
• 
  If FIR is registered against you does it affect your government Job. Read full…
  Case Details: Dana Ram v. State of RajasthanBefore: Justice Vinit Kumar MathurCourt: Rajasthan High Court Court’s Ruling on Scrutiny of Criminal Cases in Government Appointments In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the candidature of a meritorious candidate for a government job cannot be rejected merely on the ground that a criminal complaint has been filed against him. The Court emphasized that the Government must carefully scrutinize the facts of each case to determine whether the act alleged against the candidate amounts to moral turpitude before declaring him ineligible for appointment. Background of the Case The… Read more: If FIR is registered against you does it affect your government Job. Read full…
• 
  Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Motorable Highways, Halts Toll Collection on Poor Roads
  In a powerful judgment that reinforces the principle of public trust and the citizen’s right to quality infrastructure, the Supreme Court of India has recently delivered a significant verdict against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The ruling establishes that the right to collect toll is intrinsically linked to the obligation of maintaining a motorable road. Case DetailsCase Title:** National Highways Authority of India & Anr. vs. O.J Janeesh & Ors.Case Number: SLP(C) No. 22579/2025 Supreme Court of IndiaBench: Hon’ble Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Justice K. Vinod Chandran The Core of the Dispute The appeal… Read more: Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Motorable Highways, Halts Toll Collection on Poor Roads
• 
  J&K High Court Sets Aside NDPS Charge Under Section 27-A, Grants Bail and Orders Release of Seized Vehicle
  Case Title: Mohd. Aslam vs. Union Territory of J&KCase No.: CRM(M) No. 157/2025 c/w Bail App No. 297/2024 & WP(Crl) No. 87/2024Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu BenchCoram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh SekhriReserved on: 01.08.2025Pronounced on: 19.08.2025 Background of the Case The petitions arose out of FIR No. 99/2024 registered at Police Station Vijaypur. On 23.07.2024, a naka party intercepted a car (Maruti Swift, Reg. No. JK09P/1912) driven by Mohd. Aslam. Upon search, the police recovered: 16.82 grams of heroin, ₹6,13,000/- in cash, and an electronic weighing machine. The contraband was confirmed by FSL report as… Read more: J&K High Court Sets Aside NDPS Charge Under Section 27-A, Grants Bail and Orders Release of Seized Vehicle
• 
  No Arrest in 498a IPC/ 85 BNS :- Supreme Court Landmark Judgement, Relaying  on Allahabad High court Judgement
  Case Reference Shivangi Bansal v. Sahib BansalMukesh Bansal v. State of U.P. Introduction Section 85 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 498A IPC), addresses cruelty committed against married women by their husbands or in-laws. While enacted with the noble intent of protecting women from violence and dowry-related harassment, this provision has, over the years, become one of the most debated in Indian criminal law. Data obtained from five district courts in Delhi reveals a concerning picture—out of 9,950 trials under Section 85 (between 2021 and 2024), only 23 resulted in conviction (0.2%), nearly 47% were quashed, and 736… Read more: No Arrest in 498a IPC/ 85 BNS :- Supreme Court Landmark Judgement, Relaying  on Allahabad High court Judgement
• 
  Concept of Necessary Party in Writ petition is Broader then in civil suit:- J&K High Court(DB)
  Case Details Case Title: Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs Tariq Ahmad Malik 2024 Coram: Justice Tashi Rabstan & Justice M. A. ChowdharyCounsel: Mr. Areeb Javed Kawoosa, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. M. A. Qayoom and Mr. Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, Sr. AAGs for the respondents. Introduction In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified the scope of who qualifies as a “necessary party” in writ proceedings. The Court emphasized that the principle under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) cannot be applied mechanically to writ petitions. Unlike civil suits, where impleadment depends… Read more: Concept of Necessary Party in Writ petition is Broader then in civil suit:- J&K High Court(DB)
• 
  Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case, Holds Promise of Marriage Followed by Consensual Relationship Does Not Amount to Rape
  Case Title: Kunal Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal & Ors.Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind KumarDate of Judgment: July 29, 2025 The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that a consensual physical relationship arising out of a promise to marry cannot be treated as rape. Setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings against the accused, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of process. Background The prosecutrix, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident, lodged an FIR against the appellant and his family members under… Read more: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case, Holds Promise of Marriage Followed by Consensual Relationship Does Not Amount to Rape
• 
  SC:- Parties reach settlement no conviction in 138 NIA
  Check bounce case No Jail after settlement between parties                     Case Details Gian Chand Garg v. Harpal Singh & Anr.Criminal Appeal of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8050 of 2025) Court: Supreme Court of India  Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta Date of Judgment: 11 August 2025 Background of the Case The present appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The complainant alleged that the appellant had borrowed a… Read more: SC:- Parties reach settlement no conviction in 138 NIA
• 
  Calculation of minor income in motor Accident claim
  Supreme Court :- Minor can’t be a No income person for the purpose of Compensation Case Title Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.Civil Appeal No. 10278 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14444/2025)Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar MishraDate of Judgment: 8 August 2025 Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling The Supreme Court recently increased the compensation awarded to a minor victim of a road accident from ₹8.65 lakh to ₹35.90 lakh, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s award. The Court clarified that a minor cannot be treated as a non-earning individual for calculating loss… Read more: Calculation of minor income in motor Accident claim
• 
  J&K High Court Upholds Acquittal in 2002 Murder Case
  State challenged the acquittal, contending that: The trial court had not properly appreciated evidence Case Title and Citation State of J&K through S.H.O. Police Station Mahore vs. Abdul Latif & Ghulam NabiCRAA No. 143/2014, decided on 03 September 2025Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar Background of the Case The appeal arose from a 2002 incident where Abdul Hameed, a surrendered militant of the HM outfit, was allegedly murdered due to personal enmity linked to a proposed marriage alliance. The State alleged that Abdul Latif and his brother Ghulam Nabi, along with another militant, strangulated… Read more: J&K High Court Upholds Acquittal in 2002 Murder Case