Civil Court Jurisdiction Prevails Over Revenue Authorities In Property Disputes: J&K&L High Court Quashes Revenue Orders
Reaffirming the legal principle that civil courts exercise superior and overriding jurisdiction over revenue authorities in disputes involving title, possession, or civil rights over immovable property, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed three revenue orders passed against a landowner.Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasised that when a civil suit is already pending on...
Reaffirming the legal principle that civil courts exercise superior and overriding jurisdiction over revenue authorities in disputes involving title, possession, or civil rights over immovable property, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed three revenue orders passed against a landowner.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal emphasised that when a civil suit is already pending on the same subject matter, revenue authorities must step back, as their parallel proceedings not only undermine judicial discipline but also carry the inherent risk of creating conflicting outcomes.
“.. 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 remarked
These observations arose from a petition filed by one Abdul Rashid Khan, who sought protection from repeated interference by revenue officials after he purchased and built a home on a patch of land. His neighbour, Bashir Ahmad Ganie, claimed a right of way over the petitioner's land and simultaneously pursued remedies before both the civil court and revenue authorities.
Although the Tehsildar initially acknowledged the pendency of the civil suit and kept revenue proceedings in abeyance, he inexplicably revived them and passed an adverse order, directing removal of an alleged obstruction. This was followed by affirming orders from the Divisional Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner Revenue, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Justice Nargal meticulously outlined the petitioner's grievance that all three orders had been passed in violation of natural justice, procedural law, and established principles governing the jurisdictional boundaries between civil courts and revenue authorities.
The Court observed that the revenue proceedings had been pursued despite a civil suit being squarely pending before the Sub Judge, Pattan, regarding the same alleged pathway and the same cause of action. The revival of the proceedings by the Tehsildar, without any reference to his earlier order keeping the matter in abeyance or to the pendency of the civil suit, was termed a serious irregularity that struck at the root of the administrative process.
Pointing out the absence of revenue entries supporting the respondent's assertion of a pathway the Court also took note of a civil court's order which categorically held that no pathway existed over the petitioner's land and that mere past user of private land does not create an easement of necessity. The Sub Judge had also found that the petitioner's property was fenced and that the balance of convenience was in his favour.
These findings, the High Court observed, stood fortified by the Financial Commissioner's own order which conceded that no pathway was recorded in the revenue documents.
Justice Nargal expressed particular concern over the manner in which the Divisional Commissioner decided the petitioner's revision petition. The matter was officially listed for 29.06.2016, yet it was preponed and decided ex parte on 23.05.2016, allegedly without any application, notice, or reasonable justification, the bench observed and added that such preponement, without informing the affected party, constitutes a blatant violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2024), the Court reiterated that preponing a matter without notice renders the resulting order “completely illegal.”
The Court also rejected the revenue authorities' reliance on the judgment in Sabir Dar v. Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, holding that the principles laid down in that case apply only when a pathway is used by the general inhabitants of a village from time immemorial. In the present case, the dispute was strictly private between two individuals, and no material suggested that the pathway was communal or public. Thus, invocation of the J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 was entirely misplaced, the court maintained.
Justice Nargal emphasised that once a civil court is seized of a matter, revenue authorities must refrain from adjudicating or passing orders on the same question. He referred to precedents including Shri Dev Hanuman Ji Mandir Sarvajanik Samiti Rehli (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2024) and Tanzeem Khursheed Zargar v. J&K Special Tribunal (J&K High Court, 2022), reinforcing that civil proceedings take precedence and parallel remedies cannot be pursued for the same relief. The Court also noted that the respondent's withdrawal of his civil appeal after obtaining a favourable revenue order indicated a conscious attempt to bypass the jurisdiction of the civil court.
After analysing the factual and legal matrix, the Court concluded that the proceedings before the Tehsildar, Divisional Commissioner, and Financial Commissioner suffered from “grave legal infirmities, non-application of mind, and violation of statutory safeguards.” The findings were inconsistent with the binding civil court order and were passed in disregard of the petitioner's rights, the court held.
Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed all the orders and directed the authorities not to disturb the petitioner's possession. The petitioner, the Court held, is entitled to the peaceful use and enjoyment of his property without harassment or interference.
Case Title: Abdul Rashid Khan Vs State of J&K