High Court Says Disputed Land Identification and Khasra Demarcation Must Be Taken Before Civil Court
SRINAGAR, AUGUST 24: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used to conduct a factual exercise for identifying, measuring or “searching” for disputed land in a property dispute between family members.
Justice Rahul Bharti made the observations while hearing a petition seeking the identification, demarcation and retrieval of three marlas of land allegedly forming part of an 11-marla property.
The dispute arose over the identification of the relevant khasra number, with the petitioner claiming that the land in question could fall under either Khasra No. 705/26-min or 706/26-min.
The High Court observed that the petition was presented in a “disputed state of facts”, making it inappropriate for adjudication under writ jurisdiction. The Court said Article 226 was not intended to undertake a land-search exercise at the instance of one aggrieved brother against his other brothers.
The Court observed that where a person has a grievance concerning his share or claim in jointly held property, the appropriate course is to approach the competent civil court and seek a declaration along with consequential relief.
Justice Bharti further noted that the question of whether the revenue authorities had mistakenly mixed up the two khasra numbers itself involved a disputed question of fact.
Such factual disputes, the Court held, cannot ordinarily be resolved through proceedings under Article 226, which are not designed for detailed fact-finding or physical verification of disputed property.
The Court made it clear that the High Court was not expected to “venture into and do the tape measuring” of land or determine the exact location of disputed khasra numbers while exercising writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was given liberty to pursue an appropriate civil remedy in accordance with law.
The ruling underscores that disputes involving ownership, shares, khasra identification, demarcation and other contested questions of fact are matters that should ordinarily be determined through appropriate civil proceedings rather than by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.(KNC)
