Safiya Malik

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed a writ petition that sought to invalidate SRO 320 dated 31.08.1985, a Government notification publishing a list of Wakf properties in parts of Tehsil Poonch, and to undo related revenue entries and subsequent actions. The petitioners, who approached the Court as public representatives and citizens, questioned the inclusion of various lands as Wakf property and challenged communications and steps said to flow from the 1985 notification. The Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked only by a person who pleads and shows a legally enforceable injury, and that strangers cannot reopen statutory notifications that have remained unchallenged for decades.

The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu challenging SRO 320 dated 31.08.1985 issued by the Secretary to Government, Haj & Auqaf, whereby a list of Wakaf properties pertaining to eleven villages of Tehsil Poonch was published. The petitioners described themselves as public-spirited individuals, including the President of a Sabha, an advocate and social activist, and a social worker. They sought declaration of the SRO as illegal, unconstitutional, and void, quashing of consequential revenue entries and communications, and retrieval of certain lands allegedly occupied by the Auqaf authorities.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Expansion And Reform Of Open Correctional Institutions, Constitutes High-Powered Committee To Frame Common Minimum Standards

The petitioners contended that the SRO was issued in violation of the J&K Wakafs Act, 1978 without proper enquiry and that several Government lands and public utility properties were wrongly declared as Wakaf properties. They referred to eviction notices issued in 2017 and representations submitted in 2018. The respondents opposed the petition, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, disputed questions of fact, and delay of more than three decades. They maintained that the SRO was issued in accordance with law and had attained finality.

The Court observed, “Since the issue of maintainability lies at the very foundation of the matter, the Court considers it proper to adjudicate the same before entering into the merits of the controversy.”

On locus standi, the Court recorded, “From a bare perusal of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioners have neither pleaded nor demonstrated as to how any of their legal, fundamental, or statutory rights have been infringed by issuance of the impugned SRO or by the consequential actions taken by the respondents.” It further observed, “In absence of infringement of any legally protected right, the very foundation for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is rendered unsustainable.”

The Court stated, “It is a settled principle of law that the writ jurisdiction of this Court is primarily meant for enforcement of legal rights and cannot be invoked at the instance of persons who are mere strangers to the subject matter of dispute.” It recorded that mere assertions regarding social standing did not confer enforceable rights and observed that the petitioners could not be said to be aggrieved persons having locus standi.

On disputed questions of fact, the Court observed, “The writ petition involves serious disputed questions of fact relating to the nature, character, and ownership of the properties in question, and the validity of revenue entries made pursuant to the impugned SRO.” It further stated, “Such questions require appreciation of evidence and adjudication upon disputed factual issues, which cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

With respect to delay, the Court observed, “The impugned SRO was issued on 31.08.1985 and has remained in force for more than three decades.” It further recorded, “The present writ petition has been filed after an extraordinary lapse of time without furnishing any satisfactory explanation for such delay.” The Court stated, “Entertaining such belated challenge would unsettle settled rights and legal positions, which is impermissible in law.”

Also Read: Contractual Forfeiture Clauses Cannot Be Pressed Against Citizen For Authority's Own Failures: J&K&L High Court Pulls Up JDA For Auctioning Encroached Land, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost

The Court recorded, “In view of the aforesaid discussion, and without entering into the merits of the controversy, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are aggrieved persons having the requisite locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, held to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed along with all connected applications, if any.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior AAG; Mr. Ayjaz Lone, Advocate

Case Title: Satish Sasan & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: OWP No. 1547/2018
Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal