Back
No More Playing Favorites: J&K High Court Slams Government's Selective Court Challenges
In a ruling that reinforces the bedrock of judicial stability, the has dismissed an intra-court appeal by the , upholding a writ court's order to issue land records ( ) without needing prior government nod. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal stressed that once a legal position settles unchallenged for years, the government can't cherry-pick which judgments to fight—especially on outdated land alienation rules from .
Roots of the Samba Land Saga
The flashpoint was a modest 9 kanals of land under Khasra No. 153 in Village Bara, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Samba. Respondents Ravinder Kanta and others, claiming ownership and possession, sought online from Tehsildar Vijaypur to enable a sale. The application hit a wall: rejection citing Government Order No. S-432 of , which granted proprietary rights for agricultural use only and barred alienation without government permission.
Undeterred, the landowners filed WP(C) No. 1439/2024. On , the writ court allowed it, relying on precedents like Mohammad Akbar Shah v. State of J&K (AIR 2017 J&K 14) and Angrez Singh v. UT of J&K (AIR Online 2023 J&K 553), which deemed the permission clause "" given modern economic shifts away from agriculture. The UT appealed via LPA No. 126/2025, but by hearing time in , was issued and sale deeds registered—yet the government pressed on.
Government's Stand: Permission or Bust
The appellants, represented by , doubled down on the order's plain text: grantees must use land solely for agriculture and secure permission before any sale. No application, no go. They argued the writ court erred in bypassing this "continuing obligation," insisting restrictions endured despite precedents.
Respondents' counsel, , countered that the appeal was moot post-issuance of records and deeds. More fundamentally, they leaned on binding prior rulings, noting the 2017 Akbar Shah decision—never appealed by the state—had stood for nearly a decade as gospel.
Precedent as the Unmovable Anchor
The Bench zeroed in on
Mohammad Akbar Shah
, where a Single Judge ruled the permission clause outdated:
"Now the times have changed. The agriculture activity is no more the main economic activity... the condition... is rendered
."
Unchallenged, it became
"a benchmark for all subsequent cases."
Drawing from Supreme Court wisdom, the judges invoked the doctrine of
. In
Raj Narain Pandey v. Sant Prasad Tewari
(1973) 2 SCC 35, the Apex Court warned against unsettling long-standing views that underpin transactions:
"A different view would... have the effect of unsettling transactions which might have been entered into on the faith of those decisions."
Similarly,
Kattite Valappil Pathumma v. Taluk Land Board
(1997) 4 SCC 114 cautioned:
"Things which have been adjudged long ago should be allowed to rest in peace."
Legal certainty, the Bench affirmed, is
"as indispensable as the administration of justice."
Selective challenges breed "uncertainty and confusion," violating judicial discipline. Absent proof the precedent was
or erroneous, no interference.
Key Observations
"Once the initial judgment declaring the condition of prior permission as has attained finality, it became a benchmark for all subsequent cases. The Government cannot be permitted to resort to policy of 'pick and choose' which judgments it accepts and which it assails years later."
"In the realm of jurisprudence, legal certainty is as indispensable as the administration of justice. Where a ruling by a Single Judge has held the field for a significant duration without being disturbed or reversed, it attains the character of a settled position of law...""The Appellants have failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the judgment rendered in Mohammad Akbar Shah ... this Court finds no reason to deviate from a view that has held the field for nearly a decade."
(Emphasizing the order's irrelevance, as noted in LiveLaw's coverage: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 184.)
Final Verdict: Appeal Dismissed, Stability Upheld
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal outright, upholding the writ judgment. No interference with
issuance or registration,
"strictly in accordance with law."
This isn't just about one plot in Samba—it's a shield for landowners statewide. By locking in the "" ruling, it streamlines sales of old agricultural grants, curbing bureaucratic hurdles. Future cases gain clarity: settled law stays settled, barring glaring flaws. A win for certainty in a changing Jammu & Kashmir landscape.
