While imposing a cost of Rs 50,000 on the litigants for suppressing material facts, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court reaffirmed the principle against parallel proceedings. The High Court further held that the revenue authorities are expected to keep their hands off when the same controversy is pending before the Civil Court.

The petitioners approached the High Court, calling into question the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara.

The Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal stated, “This Court is of the considered view that once a Civil Court had taken cognizance of the dispute, the petitioners by no stretch of imagination can have parallel proceedings simultaneously for the same issue before another authority.”

“It is well settled that 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 and revenue authorities are expected to lay their hands off when the same controversy is pending before the Civil Court”, it added.

Senior Advocate R. A. Jan represented the Appellant while Government Advocate Faheem Nissar Shah represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The private respondents filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara seeking the removal of obstruction/encroachment on the public link road constructed by the Rural Development Department. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Tehsildar Lalpora to visit the spot and remove the obstruction/encroachments as per the law. The petitioners challenged the said order of the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, who transferred the same to the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir (with powers of the Divisional Commissioner) for disposal. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The order of the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir, was again challenged, which was upheld by the Financial Commissioner.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the matter was pending before the Civil Court and the Civil Court had already passed a restraint order, whereby the petitioners were prohibited from causing any interference with, or making any encroachment upon, the said pathway. As per the Bench, once such an order was issued by a competent Civil Court, it was incumbent upon parties to adhere to it and pursue any grievance arising therefrom before the appellate court.

The Bench noticed that the order passed by the Civil Court was in the active knowledge of the petitioners, yet the petitioners did not challenge the same before the superior court. Instead of availing the remedy available before the appropriate court, the petitioners challenged all the orders passed by the revenue authorities before this court. “When the revenue authorities decided against the petitioners, thereafter they invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court and questioned the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, the Additional Commissioner Kashmir, and the Financial Commissioner. This clearly shows that the petitioners have not followed the settled legal process and has tried to pursue the same issue before different forums and ultimately before this court by way of the instant petition”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the petitioners’ approach in seeking relief from revenue authorities, without first exhausting the remedies available before the Civil Court, which had already taken up the matter and passed an order in relation to the dispute, could not be ignored. “What the petitioners could not achieve directly is being achieved by fraud and indirectly by suppressing material facts and this court cannot shut its eyes to such a conduct on the part of the party seeking equitable right. Law of equity does not permit a party to secure indirectly what it is prohibited from claiming directly”, it held.

Noting that the revenue authorities should not have proceeded with the same issue which was the subject matter of the civil suit that was pending before the Munsiff Court Sogam, the Bench set aside the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner. The Bench thus dismissed the appeal and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners in order to deprecate such practice of suppression of material facts.

Cause Title: Farooq Ahmad Shiekh v. Financial Commissioner (Cause Title: WP(C) No. 3035/2025)

Appearance

Appellants: Senior Advocate R. A. Jan, Advocate Syed Yahya

Respondent: Government Advocate Faheem Nissar Shah, Advocates Sheikh Manzoor, Ruaani Ahmad Baba

Click here to read/download Order


Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh High CourtJustice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.