Challenge To 1985 Wakf Property Notification Fails After 33 Years: J&K&L High Court Says Only Aggrieved Persons Can Maintain Writ

The Court held that only a person suffering a legally enforceable injury can invoke Article 226, and that strangers cannot seek to unsettle statutory notifications that have attained finality over decades.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that the maintainability of a writ petition must be examined at the threshold and added that in the absence of any pleaded infringement of a legal, statutory, or fundamental right, the very foundation for invoking writ jurisdiction collapses.

“In absence of infringement of any legally protected right, the very foundation for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226… is rendered unsustainable.”, the court remarked.

Emphasising that mere assertions of public spirit or social standing do not translate into locus standi the bench added

“Mere assertion that petitioner No. 1 is President of a Sabha, petitioner No. 2 is a social activist, and petitioner No. 3 is a prominent citizen, does not confer upon them any enforceable legal right.”

For context, the Court's decision revolved around SRO 320, a notification issued by the Government in 1985 under the Jammu and Kashmir Wakafs Act, 1978, whereby properties identified through statutory surveys were officially notified as Wakf properties across eleven villages of Tehsil Poonch. Such notifications typically form the basis for consequential revenue entries reflecting Wakf status or ownership.

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking a declaration that SRO 320 was illegal, unconstitutional, and void ab initio. They also sought striking off revenue entries made pursuant to the notification and quashing of a communication recommending the handing over of land in Shehar Khas Poonch, to the Auqaf Committee.

Their principal grievance was that several Government lands and public utility properties, including public grounds, educational institutions, roads, and administrative premises, had allegedly been included as Wakf properties without compliance with the statutory enquiry contemplated under Section 4(3) of the Wakafs Act, 1978.

According to the petitioners, the ramifications of the 1985 notification surfaced only in 2017 upon issuance of eviction notices under the Jammu and Kashmir Wakafs Act, 2001, which prompted them to submit representations before authorities in 2018. They contended that the State could not confer benefits in a manner inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and secularism.

The respondents opposed the petition on preliminary as well as substantive grounds. The State authorities maintained that SRO 320 had been issued strictly in accordance with the Wakafs Act, 1978, duly published in the Government Gazette in 1985, and had attained finality decades ago. Auqaf Islamia, Poonch also raised objections regarding the petitioners' locus standi, the existence of disputed questions of fact, and the extraordinary delay of more than three decades.

Court's Observations:

Justice Nargal, while adjudicating the preliminary objection, reiterated the settled principle that writ jurisdiction is designed for enforcement of legal rights and cannot be invoked by persons who are strangers to the subject matter. The Court found that the petitioners had neither pleaded nor demonstrated any infringement of a legally enforceable right.

Reliance was placed on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, including Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., and Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, to underscore that only an “aggrieved person” suffering legal injury can maintain a writ petition.

“… No material has been placed on record to show that any legal injury has been caused to them or that any cause of action has accrued in their favour. In absence of infringement of any legal right, the petitioners cannot be held to be aggrieved persons so as to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”, the court reasoned.

The Court further observed that the petition raised serious disputed questions relating to the nature, ownership, and character of the properties, as well as the validity of revenue entries. Such controversies, the Court held, necessitate appreciation of evidence and are therefore unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings.

Referring to Board of Wakf, West Bengal v. Anis Fatma Begum, the Court reiterated that matters pertaining to Wakf properties should ordinarily be brought before the Wakf Tribunal constituted under Section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995.

A decisive factor for dismissal was the extraordinary delay. The impugned notification dated back to 1985, whereas the writ petition was instituted in 2018. The Court held that writ jurisdiction, being discretionary and equitable, cannot be exercised in favour of litigants who approach the Court after sleeping over their alleged rights for decades.

In conclusion, without entering into the merits of the allegations against SRO 320, the Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi, that the petition involved disputed factual issues, and that the challenge was barred by delay and laches. The writ petition, along with all connected applications, was accordingly dismissed.

Case: Satish Sasan & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment