Roshni Act Claims Void Ab Initio, Ownership Rights Extinguished From Start; J&K & Ladakh High Court Dismisses State Land Appeals
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held that no claim of ownership over State land can arise from the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001, (“Roshni Act”) as the statute—having been declared unconstitutional and void ab initio—provides no legal foundation for asserting any right or entitlement. The Court dismissed the appeals challenging actions of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation and seeking recognition of occupancy or restoration of possession, reiterating that all assertions linked to the invalidated enactment are extinguished at their origin. The Bench concluded that the appellants’ demands lacked merit, affirming the writ court’s decision to deny all relief.
The dispute concerns multiple writ petitions and subsequent intra-court appeals arising from claims over parcels of State land situated in the estates of Batmaloo and Rampora in Srinagar. The appellants asserted entitlement to ownership by alleging long-standing possession and the existence of relinquishment deeds. They sought recognition of occupancy rights and protection from alleged interference by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation. The petitioners also raised claims for damages and requested restoration of the earlier status of the land.
The Corporation maintained that the land had been acquired by the State, and possession was formally handed over to it following acquisition proceedings completed in 1989. A possession slip recording the transfer of approximately 41 kanals and 1 marla of land was executed between revenue authorities and the municipal administration in July 1992. The revenue entries were altered to reflect this transfer. The Financial Commissioner later directed authorities to consider applications under the Roshni Act only if they were filed within time and satisfied statutory conditions, while cautioning that State land should not be encroached upon.
The appellants sought parity with other landholders who had obtained ownership rights under the Roshni Act, and also challenged earlier revenue entries, alleging that the Corporation’s possession was unlawful. Evidence before the Court included revenue extracts, the possession memo, the Commissioner’s report, and earlier orders of the Financial Commissioner dismissing similar challenges. The statutory framework relied upon by the appellants was the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001.
The Court recorded that the appellants’ litigation arose from repeated attempts to revive issues already adjudicated: “how litigation has embroiled to the multiplicity and re-litigation, in an attempt to infuse the life into a dead horse, which of course is impossible.”
It stated that the land had been formally transferred to the Corporation following acquisition proceedings: “the Assistant Commissioner, Srinagar directed the Tehsildar Srinagar to record possession of land… in favour of erstwhile Municipal Committee now Srinagar Municipal Corporation so as to manifest the possession of formal handing over of possession of land in revenue records.”
The Court noted that these issues had previously been considered by the Financial Commissioner: “order of the Assistant Commissioner cannot be construed as one for transferring the land in question… but Assistant Commissioner was acting in accordance with the provisions of law to ensure that the revenue record depicts the position emerging as a consequence of proceedings under Land Acquisition Act.”
Regarding possession, the Bench recorded: “the possession of land comprising in two survey numbers… stood handed over to the Corporation on the date of issue of communication dated 20.07.1992.” It further observed: “possession of the department of the Government or institution can be established only by entries in that regard made in the relevant record.”
Addressing the effect of the Roshni Act being struck down, the Court stated: “after the statute… is declared as unconstitutional and void ab-initio, the appellants’ claim extinguishes from its inception and thus legally neither can claim nor can derive any benefit from such void statute.”
The Court also recorded the broader legal consequence: “In all the appeals, the sole legal foundation for every asserted right of ownership rests on the benevolence of Roshni Act that has been declared as completely unconstitutional and void ab-initio, therefore, once foundation crumbled into constitutional nullity, in that event, the claimants could not derive even iota of benefit from a void ab initio statute, as every superstructure erected thereon is wiped clean ab-initio.”
On parity, it observed: “if any illegality or irregularity has been committed by any forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for repeating or multiplying the same illegality or irregularity.”
Finally, the Court remarked on the nature of the litigation: “these appeals are nothing but classic case of re-litigation and multiplicity of litigation which practice needs to be discouraged.”
The Court directed: “In this view of the matter, we do not find any error of law or fact has been committed by the Writ Court while passing the judgment under challenge. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed along with all connected CM(s). We do not deem it appropriate to go into the other aspects of the matter either raised or dealt by the writ Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Syed Mohtasim, Advocate; Mr. Saqib Fayaz Khan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Bikramandeep Singh, Dy. A.G for R-1 to 7; Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hamja Prince, Advocate for R-8 & 9
Case Title: Ghulam Rasool Mistri v. State of J&K & Others
Case Number: LPAOW No. 68/2018 (with connected matters)
Bench: Justice Sindhu Sharma; Justice Shahzad Azeem
