Litigant Who Suppresses Material Facts Or Misleads Court Forfeits Merits Hearing And Article 226 Discretionary Relief: J&K And Ladakh High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal on Monday, 15 December 2025, dismissed two connected writ petitions seeking conferment of proprietary rights over Nazool land at Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar, and assailing eviction proceedings initiated under the Public Premises law. The Court recorded that a litigant who withholds or suppresses material facts while invoking the writ jurisdiction disentitles himself from being heard on merits and cannot seek equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the merits, it found no basis to grant parity with other leaseholders for ownership rights and declined to interfere with the eviction notice. Interim protection was vacated and the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law.
The proceedings arose out of two writ petitions filed by Radha Krishen Koul and others against the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and revenue authorities. The dispute concerned Nazool land situated at Sheikh Bagh, Srinagar, originally leased to the petitioners’ predecessors and transferred to them in 1957. The lease expired in 1974 and was subsequently renewed in 1982.
The petitioners sought quashing of a 2005 order to the extent it conferred proprietary rights only over a portion of the land on payment of a higher rate and claimed parity with other leaseholders who were granted ownership under Government Order of 1981. They alleged discriminatory treatment, contending that similarly situated persons in the same shopping line were charged substantially lower rates.
During pendency of their representations, an eviction notice dated 27 October 2021 was issued under Section 4(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988. The petitioners challenged the notice, asserting lack of jurisdiction and violation of their rights. The respondents opposed the petitions, raising objections regarding concealment of prior litigation, expiry of lease, ineligibility under the 1981 Government Order, and the declaration of the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights) Act, 2001 as void ab initio.
The Court observed that the petitioners failed to establish eligibility under Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981, recording that “they were not lessees of the property at the time the Government Order of 1981 was issued.” It noted that the lease had expired in 1974 and that renewal was granted only later in 1982, thereby placing the petitioners outside the ambit of the 1981 scheme.
On the issue of parity, the Court stated that since the petitioners had applied for conferment of proprietary rights under the J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership Rights) Act, 2001, “they constitute a separate and distinct category, from the leaseholders who were granted proprietary rights under the Government Order of 1981.” The Court accordingly recorded that “the plea of directing the respondents to accord similar treatment … holds no merit.”
Addressing the allegation of discrimination, the Court recorded that “the plea of discrimination under Article 14 holds no merit,” as the petitioners sought comparison across “two separate statutory schemes.” The Court further observed that the Roshni Act had already been declared unconstitutional, noting that “all acts done under the Act of 2001 or amendments thereunder are unconstitutional and void ab initio.” Consequently, it recorded that any claim for proprietary rights based on the 2005 regularisation order was “not tenable in the eyes of law.”
With respect to the eviction notice, the Court observed that the lease had expired on 01.04.2014 and that the petitioners failed to seek renewal, thereby rendering them unauthorized occupants. It recorded that “Respondent No.5, being the Estate Officer is empowered by Section 4(1) of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 to issue such notice,” and held that the notice “cannot be contested on the grounds of illegality and being issued without any power and authority.”
The Court further recorded deliberate suppression of material facts by the petitioners, observing that “their previous writ petitions … were withdrawn immediately after the respondents filed their replies, yet this vital fact has been intentionally concealed.” It stated that such conduct was “not a mere omission but a calculated attempt to mislead this Court.” Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court recorded that “a litigant who attempts to secure orders of the Court by suppressing material facts forfeits all right to be heard.”
Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the petitioners were disentitled from any equitable or discretionary relief under Article 226 due to their conduct.
The Court directed that “both writ petitions merit outright dismissal” and accordingly ordered that “both writ petitions are dismissed. The prayer for quashing Order No. Rev/NDK/81/69-II dated 19.09.2005, or for directing consideration of their case under Government Order No. Rev/NDK/248 of 1981 dated 17.08.1981, is legally misconceived and untenable.”
“The challenge to Order No. ACN/R/L/85 dated 27.10.2021 issued by respondent No. 5 is devoid of any merit,” and recorded that “Respondent No. 5, acting in his capacity as the competent Estate Officer under Section 4(1) of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, was well within his statutory domain in issuing the impugned notice.”
“The interim directions passed in both the cases shall stand vacated. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further against the petitioners in accordance with law, rules, and the applicable statutory regime. This Court is not inclined to saddle the petitioners with costs at this fag end of their lives,” but directed that “it regards it necessary to issue a firm warning to the petitioners that they should abstain from indulging in such a practice in future.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aijaz Ahmad Chisti, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate
Case Title: Radha Krishen Koul & Ors. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors
Case Number: WP(C) 2581/2021 c/w WP(C) 202/2021
Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
