Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 10: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh today dismissed a writ petition filed by three residents of Kupwara accused of obstructing a public link road, holding that the petitioners had deliberately and willfully suppressed material facts and attempted to misuse the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while rejecting the petition, also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioners—Farooq Ahmad Shiekh, Showkat Ahmad Shiekh and Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Shiekh of Surigam, Lalpora in Kupwara district ordering that the amount be deposited in the Advocates’ Welfare Fund within two weeks.
The petitioners had challenged orders of the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara, Additional Commissioner Kashmir and Financial Commissioner Revenue, which directed removal of obstruction from a public pathway constructed under the 14th Finance Commission Convergence Scheme (2017-18).
However, the High Court found that a civil suit on the same subject matter was already pending before the Court of Munsiff Sogam. The Civil Court had passed a restraint order on 12.07.2024 prohibiting the petitioners from interfering with the pathway. This crucial fact and the order itself was not disclosed before the High Court.
Calling this a deliberate and willful act, the High Court held that the petitioners approached the High Court “not with clean hands” and attempted to secure indirectly what they were prohibited from claiming directly.
The High Court noted that disputed link road falls under Khasra Nos. 1673, 1675, 1678 and 1679, recorded as Shamilat-e-Deh Maqbooza Malikan, and not under the proprietary land (Khasra No. 1660) claimed by the petitioners.
A 2017-18 RDD record, Panchayat report of 2022 and Tehsildar’s verification of July 2024 confirmed that the road was constructed by the Rural Development Department and the petitioners had blocked/encroached a portion of it. Further, the Tehsildar had already removed the obstruction and submitted compliance.
The High Court reaffirmed the settled legal principle that once a civil court is seized of a matter concerning title, possession or user of immovable property, revenue authorities must refrain from parallel adjudication.
Quoting its earlier judgment in “Abdul Rashid Khan Versus UT of J&K”, the High Court observed, “jurisdiction of the civil court overrides that of revenue authorities. Once a civil suit is pending on the same subject matter, revenue authorities are expected to defer their proceedings”.
Justice Nargal underscored that suppression of orders and active concealment of relevant facts amounted to “fraud on the Court” and an abuse of the writ jurisdiction. Citing the Supreme Court ruling in “Prestige Lights Ltd. Versus SBI, the High Court reiterated that a litigant who approaches the writ court must make full and fair disclosure. Any suppression disentitles the party from equitable relief.
While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court directed the petitioners to pursue their remedy exclusively before the Civil Court and clarified that the Civil Court shall decide purely on merits, uninfluenced by the High Court observations.
The post HC imposes Rs 50,000 cost on petitioners for deliberate suppression of facts appeared first on Daily Excelsior.