1. Haseena Yaseen has filed this writ petition to seek injunctive writ against Mohd Yaseen Kanroo, her husband to refrain from interfering in her possession over 10 Marlas and 205 sfts. of land comprised in Survey No. 23-min Khalsa Sarkar and a two storied house situated at Narsing Garh, Balgarden Srinagar, stated to have been purchased by her for an amount of Rs. 13,11,225/- from a migrant after obtaining permission from Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 And against the official respondents not to initiate any action to withdraw the permission granted to her for the purchase of the house without following the procedure prescribed by law.

2. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. S.A. Qadri, Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that after obtaining permission from Divisional Commissioner, Srinagar under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, the petitioner came in possession of the land on 27th of March 2006 and started putting up there alongwith her son Zabar Yaseen. Her husband Mohd Yaseen Kanroo who had married another woman from Pattan had demanded documents of the residential house and wanted her to vacate it. He had been threatening the petitioner that in case the possession of the residential house was not handed over to her alongwith the documents, he would get the permission obtained by her to purchase the house cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proprietary and possessory rights of the petitioner over the land and house need to be protected and for that purpose the petitioner was entitled to the issuance of a writ of Mandamus.

3. I have considered the submissions of Mr. S.A. Qadri and gone through the contents of the writ petition and documents annexed therewith.

4. The grievance projected by the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially a civil dispute between the wife on the one hand, and her husband on the other hand, over land and a residential house stated to have been purchased by her from a Migrant, after obtaining permission from Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. The grievance of the petitioner that her husband is likely to approach the authorities under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 to seek cancellation of her permission without adopting due procedure of law is a mere apprehension which may not provide a legitimate basis to the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction of the court.

5. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable; its exercise may not be warranted where relief sought may well be had under the ordinary laws of the land in the civil courts or other Forums created as such under the laws in force.

6. The petitioner has equally efficacious remedies before the civil court and the forums prescribed under the Jammu and Kashmir Migrants Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, available to her where she may project her grievances.

7. It would be an abuse of process to permit the petitioner to maintain her petition to invoke the Extra-ordinary Writ jurisdiction of the court.

No case for Admission of this writ petition to hearing has been made out.

Dismissed along with CMP No. 114/2007.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document