J&K High Court Rejects Land Claims Under Roshni Act, Citing Statute's Unconstitutionality and "Abuse of Process"

Srinagar, J&K – The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant ruling, has dismissed a batch of appeals seeking ownership rights over state land under the now-defunct Roshni Act. A division bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that since the Roshni Act has been declared unconstitutional and void ab-initio, no rights can be derived from it.

The court also strongly condemned the appellants for indulging in "re-litigation and multiplicity of litigation," describing their persistent efforts as an "abuse of process of the Court" and an attempt "to infuse the life into a dead horse."

Case Background

The appeals, led by Ghulam Rasool Mistri, challenged a 2018 judgment by a single judge. The appellants asserted their possession of state land in Rampora, Srinagar, and claimed entitlement to ownership rights under the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001, popularly known as the Roshni Act. They contested actions by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) and sought parity with other individuals who had been granted similar rights.

Arguments and Court's Analysis

The core of the appellants' case rested on their claim to be in possession of the land and their eligibility under the Roshni Act. They also argued for equal treatment, citing other instances where ownership rights were conferred.

The court, however, found these arguments untenable. It noted that the land in question, measuring over 41 kanals, had been legally transferred to the Srinagar Municipal Corporation following acquisition proceedings back in 1992. The bench upheld the single judge's finding that the SMC was in legal possession, emphasizing that for a government entity, possession is established through official records, not continuous physical presence.

The Collapse of the Roshni Act's Foundation

The judgment's determinative factor was the legal status of the Roshni Act itself. The bench cited the landmark decision in S.K Bhalla (Prof.) Vs. State of J&K & ors. , where the Act was declared "unconstitutional, contrary to law and thus, void ab-initio."

In a pivotal excerpt, the court reasoned: > "In all the appeals, the sole legal foundation for every asserted right of ownership rests on the benevolence of Roshni Act that has been declared as completely unconstitutional and void ab-initio, therefore, once foundation crumbled into constitutional nullity... the claimants could not derive even iota of benefit from a void ab initio statute, as every superstructure erected thereon is wiped clean ab-initio."

The court clarified that the principle of parity could not be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. It rejected the appellants' comparison with others, noting factual disparities in the land parcels involved.

A "Classic Case of Re-litigation"

Justice Shahzad Azeem, writing for the bench, expressed strong disapproval of the appellants' litigation history. The judgment highlighted that the issue of the 1992 land transfer had already been unsuccessfully challenged by the occupants in 1997. The current series of petitions and appeals on the same subject was deemed a deliberate attempt to prolong litigation.

Quoting the Supreme Court's decision in * K.K Modi Vs. K.N Modi and ors. *, the bench stated:

> "It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him... The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and the court from being wasted."

Final Verdict and Implications

Dismissing all three appeals, the High Court affirmed the single judge's decision. The ruling solidifies the legal position that no claims for ownership can be entertained under the Roshni Act following its declaration as unconstitutional. It serves as a stark warning against vexatious and repetitive litigation, reinforcing the court's authority to curb the abuse of its process.