Single Judge Ruling Holding Field For Significant Duration Shouldn’t Be Unsettled Unless It Is Per Incuriam: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The High Court was considering an intra-court appeal against the judgment rendered by the Writ Court, whereby a direction was passed for the issuance of Fard Intekhab with regard to the subject land in favor of the respondents and registration of the document upon its presentation.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal held, “In the realm of jurisprudence, legal certainty is as indispensable as the administration of justice. Where a ruling by a Single Judge has held the field for a significant duration without being disturbed or reversed, it attains the character of a settled position of law and should not ordinarily be unsettled, as doing so would undermine judicial stability, unless the decision is demonstrably per incuriam or palpably erroneous.”

Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli represented the Appellant, while Advocate Jagpaul Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondents claiming to be owners in possession of the subject land applied online for the issuance of Fard Intikhab before the second appellant, Tehsildar Vijaypur, with respect to the subject land for the purpose of sale. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the Tehsildar on the ground that the same was in violation of the Government Order No. S-432 of 1966 dated June 3, 1966. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred a writ petition, which came to be allowed by the writ Court.

Appellants, being aggrieved of the impugned judgment, preferred the intra-court appeal on the ground that the Government Order stipulated that the grantee shall utilize the land solely for agricultural purposes and shall not be entitled to alienate the same without prior permission of the Government. As per the appellants, the application of the respondents was rightly rejected since the respondents never applied to the Government for the grant of such permission concerning the subject land.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Mohammad Akbar Shah v. State of J&K and Others (2017) wherein the condition of seeking previous permission of the Government for alienation of land, which was given for agriculture purposes, in terms of paragraph 4 of the order of 1966, was rendered otiose and it was held that the same would not not effect right of the owner of land to alienate the same provided other statutory requirements are fulfilled for such alienation. The Bench took note of the fact that the Single Judge, while placing reliance upon Mohammad Akbar Shah (Supra) held that no prior permission of the Government for alienation of land under the guise of the aforesaid Government Order could be insisted upon.

The Bench thus stated, “The law on this point has held the field for a decade. Once the initial judgment declaring the condition of prior permission as otiose has attained finality, it became a benchmark for all subsequent cases. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to policy of 'pick and choose' which judgments it accepts and which it assails years later. Such selective challenges undermine the principle of finality and violate the mandate of judicial discipline, which requires that settled positions remain undisturbed.”

Taking note of the fact that the Appellants failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the judgment rendered in Mohammad Akbar Shah (Supra) and also did not present any compelling argument that the said decision was contrary to law, the Bench refused to deviate from a view that had held the field for nearly a decade. Thus, refusing to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others v. Ravinder Kanta and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:122)

Click here to read/download Order