Govt Can't 'Pick & Choose' Judgments To Challenge After Years; Settled Legal Position Must Remain Undisturbed: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the Government cannot selectively choose which judgments to accept and which to challenge after a prolonged period, reiterating that once a legal position has attained finality and held the field for years, it must remain undisturbed in the interest of judicial discipline and certainty.
The Court was hearing an intra-court appeal filed by the Union Territory of J&K challenging the judgment of the writ court directing the issuance of Fard Intikhab in favour of the respondents.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed: “Once the initial judgment declaring the condition of prior permission as otiose has attained finality, it became a benchmark for all subsequent cases, … The Government cannot be permitted to resort to a policy of 'pick and choose' which judgments it accepts and which it assails years later”.
The Court further emphasised that “such selective challenges undermine the principle of finality and violate the mandate of judicial discipline, which requires that settled positions remain undisturbed.”
The respondents had applied for the issuance of Fard Intikhab in respect of land situated in Village Bara, Tehsil Vijaypur, District Samba, for sale. The application was rejected by the Tehsildar because the land had been granted under Government Order No. S-432 of 1966, which required prior permission of the Government for alienation.
Aggrieved, the respondents approached the writ court, which allowed the petition by placing reliance on earlier judgments, including Mohammad Akbar Shah v. State of J&K (2017) and Angrez Singh v. UT of J&K (2023), holding that the requirement of prior permission had become otiose.
The Union Territory challenged this decision in appeal, contending that the restriction under the Government Order continued to operate and that alienation without prior permission was impermissible.
At the outset, the High Court examined the earlier judgment in Mohammad Akbar Shah v. State of J&K (2017), which had held that the condition requiring prior Government permission for alienation of land granted for agricultural purposes had become redundant in light of changing socio-economic conditions. The Court noted that the said judgment had not been challenged by the Government and had thus attained finality.
The Court observed that once such a judgment has held the field for nearly a decade without being disturbed, it acquires the status of a settled legal position and becomes a guiding precedent for subsequent cases. It emphasised that the State cannot reopen such settled issues by selectively challenging judgments at a belated stage.
In this context, the Court reiterated the principle of legal certainty, observing that “in the realm of jurisprudence, legal certainty is as indispensable as the administration of justice,” and that disturbing long-settled positions would lead to uncertainty and instability in the legal system.
“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 and should not ordinarily be unsettled, as doing so would undermine judicial stability, unless the decision is demonstrably per incuriam or palpably erroneous”, the Court remarked.
The Court further relied upon the doctrine of stare decisis, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Raj Narain Pandey v. Sant Prasad Tewari (1973), which held that long-standing interpretations of law should not be unsettled as it would disturb settled transactions and expectations.
It also referred to Kattite Valappil Pathumma v. Taluk Land Board (1997), wherein the Supreme Court cautioned against revisiting long-standing decisions merely because another view is possible, particularly where doing so would reopen settled rights and titles.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the appellants had failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the earlier judgment declaring the condition of prior permission as otiose. In the absence of any compelling reason to deviate from the settled position, the Court declined to interfere.
The Court also noted that in the present case, the appeal had effectively been rendered infructuous, as Fard Intikhab had already been issued and subsequent sale deeds had been executed and registered.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the writ court directing the issuance of Fard Intikhab.
Case Title: Union Territory of J&K & Ors. v. Ravinder Kanta & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 184
Appearances
Appellants: Monika Kohli, Senior AAG
Respondents: Jagpaul Singh, Advocate