FAROOQ AHMAD SHIEKH V. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER WP(C) NO. 3035/2025:

DATE: 10/12/2025

COURT: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh

BENCH: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

FACTS:

The petitioners challenged orders passed by the Financial Commissioner on 19.09.2025, the Additional Commissioner Kashmir on 01.01.2025, and the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara on 25.04.2024, concerning the alleged encroachment on a public link road constructed by the Rural Development Department in 2017-18 under the 14th Finance Commission Convergence Scheme. The private respondents had filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara seeking removal of obstructions on this road, leading to directives for the Tehsildar Lalpora to inspect and remove encroachments. The petitioners claimed the land formed part of their proprietary holdings under Khasra No. 1660 in estate Surigam, but revenue reports indicated the obstructed portion fell under Khasra No. 1673, recorded as Shamilat-deh maqbooza malikan, with no proprietary rights held by the petitioners. Appeals and revisions by the petitioners were dismissed, upholding the Deputy Commissioner's order, which was essentially a remand for factual determination by the Tehsildar.

Further records revealed that the private respondents had previously approached the Deputy Commissioner in 2022 on the same issue, resulting in reports confirming the encroachment. A team of revenue officials conducted a spot visit, removed the obstructions on 09.07.2024, and confirmed the pathway's alignment with Khasra Nos. 1673, 1675, 1678, and 1679. Notably, a parallel civil suit (C.O.S No. 83/2024) was filed by the private respondents before the Munsiff Court, Sogam Kupwara, where an interim order dated 12.07.2024 restrained the petitioners from interfering with or encroaching upon the pathway. The petitioners did not disclose this civil proceeding or the restraint order in their writ petition, despite it being referenced in the revenue authorities' orders.

ISSUES:

The primary issues were whether the orders of the revenue authorities (Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner) regarding the removal of encroachments on the public pathway were valid, given the petitioners' claim to proprietary rights over the land; whether parallel proceedings before revenue authorities were permissible when a civil suit on the same subject matter was pending, including an interim restraint order; and whether the petitioners' suppression of the civil suit and interim order constituted an abuse of process, warranting dismissal of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merit due to the petitioners' deliberate suppression of material facts, including the pending civil suit and the interim restraint order dated 12.07.2024. The court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioners, to be deposited in the Advocates' Welfare Fund within two weeks, and relegated them to pursue remedies in the civil court without influencing its proceedings. The revenue authorities' orders were held unsustainable due to the overriding jurisdiction of the civil court.

The court's reasoning emphasized the superiority of civil court jurisdiction over revenue authorities in disputes involving title, possession, or civil rights to immovable property, as established in precedents like Abdul Rashid Khan vs. UT of J&K (decided on 27.11.2025). It held that once a civil suit was pending on the identical subject matter with the Munsiff Court having issued a restraint order on 12.07.2024 prohibiting the petitioners from interfering with the pathway, he revenue authorities should have deferred their proceedings to avoid conflicting adjudications. The petitioners' pursuit of parallel remedies before revenue forums, without exhausting or disclosing the civil court process, violated the principle against multiple proceedings on the same issue, risking inconsistent decisions and amounting to forum shopping. The court noted that the revenue orders, including the Deputy Commissioner's remand directive, were improperly issued in light of the civil court's cognizance, rendering them invalid.

Furthermore, the judgment highlighted the petitioners' unclean hands and abuse of the court's process under Article 226, as they deliberately concealed the civil suit (C.O.S No. 83/2024) and the interim order, despite these being known and referenced in the appellate and revisional records. Citing Supreme Court rulings such as Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) and Satpal Sharma vs. State of J&K, the court stressed that full disclosure of material facts is mandatory in writ petitions, and suppression disentitles parties from equitable relief. The petitioners' attempt to mislead the court to obtain interim relief indirectly, which they could not achieve directly due to the civil restraint, constituted fraud and warranted dismissal with costs to deter such conduct and preserve judicial sanctity. The relegation to the civil court ensured the dispute's resolution on merits without prejudice from the writ observations.

ANALYSIS:

This case from the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (WP(C) No. 3035/2025, decided around December 2025) underscores the primacy of civil court jurisdiction in disputes involving title, possession, or civil rights over immovable property, particularly land encroachments on pathways. By quashing revenue authorities' orders and dismissing the writ petition due to deliberate suppression of facts, the court reinforced that revenue officials must defer to ongoing civil proceedings to prevent conflicting decisions and forum shopping. The judgment aligns with established principles, citing recent precedents like Abdul Rashid Khan v. UT of J&K (27.11.2025), emphasizing that parallel administrative actions risk inconsistency and undermine judicial hierarchy when a competent civil court has already seized the matter through an interim restraint order.

The imposition of Rs.50,000 costs on the petitioners highlights the strict application of the "clean hands" doctrine in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, drawing from Supreme Court authority in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449. Suppression of the pending civil suit and its interim order amounted to abuse of process, disentitling the petitioners to equitable relief and serving as a deterrent against misleading the court. Overall, the ruling promotes procedural discipline, safeguards judicial sanctity, and ensures disputes are resolved in the appropriate forum—the civil court—without prejudice from parallel revenue interventions, thereby preventing multiplicity of litigation in land matters common to the region.