High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Over Suppression of Civil Court Order in Pathway Encroachment Dispute

Court Rejects Petitioners' Challenge, Imposes Heavy Costs for Concealing Facts

In a strongly worded judgment delivered on December 10, 2025, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar dismissed a writ petition filed by three brothers from Surigam village in Kupwara district. The court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, criticized the petitioners for deliberately suppressing key material facts, including a pending civil suit and an interim restraint order issued by a lower civil court. The petitioners were ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the Advocates' Welfare Fund within two weeks, underscoring the court's intolerance for abuse of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The case stemmed from a long-standing dispute over an alleged encroachment on a public link road constructed by the Rural Development Department in 2017-18 under the 14th Finance Commission Convergence Scheme. The road, falling under Khasra No. 1673 recorded as "Shamilat-deh maqbooza malikan" (common village land occupied by owners), had been obstructed by the petitioners, who claimed it as part of their proprietary land under Khasra No. 1660.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy began in October 2022 when private respondents—Ghulam Mohammad Shiekh, Waseem Akber Shiekh, and Arshad Ahmad Shiekh—approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, seeking removal of the encroachment on the public pathway in Surigam village, Tehsil Lalpora. A prior Panchayat Secretary report from April 2022 had already confirmed the road's construction and the petitioners' obstruction, but initial directives to lower officials yielded no action.

Frustrated by the inaction, the respondents renewed their plea, leading to the Deputy Commissioner's order on April 25, 2024, directing the Tehsildar, Lalpora, to inspect the site and remove any encroachments. The Tehsildar complied on July 9, 2024, after a spot visit, and filed a compliance report. The petitioners appealed this order to the Additional Commissioner, Kashmir (exercising Divisional Commissioner powers), but their appeal was dismissed on January 1, 2025. A subsequent revision before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) on September 19, 2025, also upheld the lower orders.

Aggrieved, the petitioners—Farooq Ahmad Shiekh (45), Showkat Ahmad Shiekh (39), and Ghulam Mohi ud Din Shiekh (53), sons of Late Mohammad Rajab Shiekh—filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3035/2025, challenging all three revenue orders.

Parallel to these proceedings, the respondents had instituted a civil suit (C.O.S. No. 83/2024) before the Munsiff, Sogam, Kupwara, seeking a temporary injunction against the petitioners' interference with the pathway. On July 12, 2024, the civil court granted the injunction, restraining the petitioners from encroaching or interfering with the pathway until the next hearing, subject to objections under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

Arguments Presented by the Parties

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R. A. Jan with Advocate Syed Yahya, argued that the disputed land formed part of their proprietary holdings under Khasra No. 1660 (11 kanals 10 marlas) and was not connected to the public pathway. They contended that the revenue orders were erroneous, as the pathway under Khasra No. 1673 was recorded as "Shamilat-e-Deh Maqbooza Malikan" (common land), and cited a Deputy Commissioner communication from March 14, 2025, noting the blockage. They sought quashing of the revenue orders, claiming no encroachment had occurred on public land.

The respondents, through Government Advocate Faheem Nissar Shah and Advocate Sheikh Manzoor for the caveator, along with Advocate Ruaani Ahmad Baba, highlighted the revenue records, including Jamabandi 2016-17 and Khasra Girdawari 2024, which showed Khasra No. 1673 (6 kanals 16 marlas) as banjar qadeem (old barren) common land with no ownership entry for the petitioners. They emphasized the Rural Development Department's construction records and the Tehsildar's July 2025 report confirming the encroachment. Crucially, they pointed out the petitioners' failure to disclose the ongoing civil suit and the July 12, 2024, restraint order, which revenue authorities had noted in appellate and revisional proceedings.

The petitioners vaguely referenced an earlier interim order from October 29, 2022, in the civil suit but provided no details or records, while completely omitting the 2024 restraint order.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

Justice Nargal invoked established principles on the superiority of civil court jurisdiction over revenue authorities in property disputes involving title and possession. Citing the court's own recent ruling in Abdul Rashid Khan vs. UT of J&K and Ors. (decided November 27, 2025), the judgment stressed: "The jurisdiction of the civil court is superior to, and overrides, that of the revenue authorities... Once a civil suit is pending on the same subject-matter, the revenue authorities are expected to defer their proceedings so as not to prejudice or conflict with the adjudication before the civil court."

The court also drew on Supreme Court precedent in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007 (8) SCC 449), which mandates full disclosure of material facts in writ petitions: "If there is suppression of material facts... the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits." Similarly, the High Court's decision in Satpal Sharma vs. State of J&K and others was referenced to underline that suppression constitutes "abuse of the process of law," disentitling parties from equitable relief under Article 226 and warranting costs.

The distinction was clear: while revenue authorities could handle administrative encroachments, the pendency of a civil suit barred parallel proceedings to avoid conflicting outcomes. The court distinguished this from mere compounding or quashing scenarios, emphasizing societal interest in unobstructed public pathways and the petitioners' unclean hands.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

Key reasoning included: "The petitioners have not come to this court with clean hands and have tried to play fraud with this court... Law of equity does not permit a party to secure indirectly what it is prohibited from claiming directly."

On the civil order: "Once such an order was issued by a competent Civil Court, it was incumbent upon parties to adhere to it... The petitioners failed to contest the said order before the civil court in the hierarchy and has abandoned the said proceedings over there."

Regarding revenue overreach: "It is manifestly clear that the revenue authorities should not have proceeded with the same issue which was subject matter of the civil suit... The law does not permit parties taking conflicting routes."

Final Decision and Implications

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with the court imposing Rs. 50,000 in costs on the petitioners jointly to deter suppression of facts and uphold judicial sanctity. The petitioners were directed to pursue remedies in the pending civil suit before the Munsiff, Sogam, which was instructed to proceed on merits without influence from the High Court's observations. The Registry was tasked with verifying cost compliance.

This ruling reinforces the principle against parallel litigation and forum shopping, particularly in land disputes where civil courts hold primacy. It serves as a caution to litigants in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh: full disclosure is non-negotiable in invoking High Court jurisdiction. For rural communities, it highlights protections for public infrastructure like link roads, potentially streamlining encroachment resolutions through proper channels while curbing misuse of writ remedies.

The judgment, reserved on December 5, 2025, and uploaded the same day, underscores the court's role as both a court of law and equity, ensuring fair play in property-related conflicts.