Kulgam, May 20 The Principal Sessions Judge, Kulgam, has set aside an order passed by the Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar Kulgam regarding the management of Jamia Masjid Shareef Katrasoo, holding that the procedure prescribed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had not been properly followed.
The revision petition was filed by Manzoor Ahmad Bhat of Katrasoo against an order dated February 9, 2026, through which the Executive Magistrate had directed that the affairs of Jamia Masjid Shareef Katrasoo be managed by the village Lumberdar assisted by the Chowkidar in the interest of maintaining law and order and peace in the area.
According to the court record, the dispute arose after objections were raised regarding the constitution of a new Auqaf Committee in Katrasoo village. An application submitted before authorities had expressed concerns over the formation of the committee and sought constitution of a fresh body. The matter was subsequently examined by revenue authorities and reached the Executive Magistrate.
The petitioner argued before the Sessions Court that the impugned order had been passed without complying with mandatory legal requirements under Section 163 BNSS and without establishing any immediate threat or apprehension of breach of peace. It was also argued that the order had been issued without affording proper opportunity of hearing.
During proceedings, the court examined whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to invoke Section 163 BNSS, which deals with urgent cases involving nuisance or apprehended danger requiring immediate preventive action. The court also considered rival submissions regarding maintainability of the revision petition and the nature of the dispute concerning mosque management.
In its detailed order, the Sessions Court observed that the Executive Magistrate had failed to record sufficient material facts demonstrating imminent danger or disturbance of peace necessary for invoking powers under Section 163 BNSS. The court noted that neither the application nor the report placed before the Magistrate clearly indicated any real apprehension of breach of peace in the village.
The court further held that the impugned order could not be treated as merely interlocutory since it affected management rights and therefore remained amenable to revision.
Setting aside the Tehsildar’s order, the Principal Sessions Judge remanded the matter back to the trial court with directions to proceed afresh in accordance with law and observations made in the judgment. Pending further proceedings, the caretaker management constituted under the impugned order has been directed to hand over affairs of management to the petitioner. Parties have been asked to appear before the trial court on May 22, 2026. [KNT]
