Property Title Disputes Cannot Be Adjudicated In Writ Proceedings: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court

The High Court was hearing two connected appeals filed by the legal representatives of a deceased estate holder, challenging the order of a Single Judge dismissing their writ petitions seeking restoration of possession over a parcel of land.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem, while dismissing the appeals observed that “ where a serious dispute on questions of fact between the parties persists and a particular question arose as to whether one of the parties has acquired any title to the property in dispute, the proceedings by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy in a case where the decision of the Court would amount to a decree declaring a party’s title and ordering restoration of possession.”

Advocate Salih Pirzada appeared for the appellants, while Bikramdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, represented the respondents.

Background

The appellants, the successors-in-interest of the deceased estate holder, claimed that their predecessor had purchased a parcel of land through a registered sale deed and that the family had been in possession of the said land until the authorities allegedly encroached upon it and began construction of a commercial complex.

The appellants approached the Court seeking restoration of possession, quashing of a no-objection certificate issued to the municipal authorities, and grant of compensation.

The respondents, however, contended that the land in question was recorded as Government land in the revenue records and that all incorrect entries showing private possession had been rectified through mutation proceedings.

Court’s Observations

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, at the outset, noted that in the sale deed relied upon by the appellants “there has been nothing to come to a definite conclusion regarding the title of the Appellants over the parcel of land, as the purported sale deed is sans survey number and identifiable location, which is the source of alleged right of ownership and resultant possession”, and that therefore the Court could not conclusively determine whether the land mentioned in the sale deed was the same property over which the construction had taken place.

Concurring with the findings of the Single Judge that serious disputed questions of fact existed between the parties, the Division Bench held that “if the plea of the Appellants is accepted, same would amount to recovery of the possession, thus, the necessary corollary of such an action would amount to passing a decree in favour of the Appellants and same is neither conceivable nor permissible under law”.

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh (1992) and Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India (1957), the Bench observed that when the title of a petitioner is disputed, “the proper remedy in such a case is by way of a title suit in a Civil Court and the alternative remedy of obtaining relief by a ‘Writ of Mandamus’, or, an order in the nature of mandamus would only be had if the facts were not in dispute and the title of the property in dispute was clear”.

The Bench also noted that the appellants’ prayer for compensation and damages could not be entertained in writ proceedings, since such claims required detailed evidence and quantification, which are beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

In view of the conflicting claims and the lack of conclusive evidence identifying the disputed land, the J&K and Ladakh High Court held that the writ petitions were rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Further, the Bench concluded that the matter involved intricate questions of fact relating to title, possession, and the nature of the property, which could only be adjudicated in a properly instituted civil suit.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed both appeals as devoid of merit, vacating all interim directions.

Cause Title: Marlene Jhan and Others v. The Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:JKLHC-SGR:270)

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocates Salih Pirzada and Sharaf Wani.

Respondents: Bikramdeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, with Nowbahar Khan, Assisting Counsel; and Advocate A. Hanan.

Click here to read/download Judgment