 Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 6: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed two connected Letters Patent Appeals (LPA No. 204/2024 and LPA No. 223/2024) filed by the legal heirs of late Mohammad Aslam Phalgaroo, challenging the construction of a commercial complex at Khayam Road, Srinagar, on land they claimed ownership of through a 1999 registered sale deed.
A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the April 2024 judgment of the Single Judge, which had dismissed writ petitions on the ground that serious disputed questions of fact were involved that could not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Phalgaroo had purchased 7,735 sq ft of land at Khayam Road in 1999, but after his death, his family alleged that the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) trespassed and raised a multi-storeyed shopping complex on the property. They sought restoration of possession, cancellation of the 2014 NOC issued in SMC’s favour, and compensation.
The respondents, however, maintained that the land fell under Survey Nos. 1512 and 1513 at Khanyar, recorded as “Sarkar” (State land) and “Mehfooz Kahcharie”, and that all illegal entries had already been rectified through mutation proceedings. The SMC informed the Court it had lawfully constructed a three-storeyed commercial building on the site.
The Bench noted that the sale deed lacked crucial details such as survey numbers or khasra identification, making it impossible to establish whether the disputed land was indeed the same parcel purchased in 1999. “Such disputed questions of fact… can only be decided in civil proceedings, not in writ jurisdiction,” the judgment observed, citing precedents from the Supreme Court.
The Court further said that granting possession to the appellants would “virtually amount to passing a decree” — a power reserved for civil courts after trial and evidence, not for writ courts.
Holding that the writ petitions were misconceived, the High Court dismissed both appeals as “devoid of merit”, vacating interim directions, but clarified that the appellants are free to seek remedy before a competent civil court. (JNF) |
