“Virtual Facility to Address Threat Perception”: J&K High Court Disposes Transfer Plea and Directs Remote Access for Migrant Litigants
Sanhayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has declined a request to shift proceedings from the Srinagar Wing to the Jammu Wing, while directing that the applicants be provided the facility to appear through virtual mode. Single Bench Judge, Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan recorded that “the applicants/petitioners herein have the option to attend the hearing virtually through their counsel from Jammu itself.” The application had been filed on the basis of apprehensions related to threat perception associated with physical appearance at Srinagar, arising from the applicants’ status as migrants from the Kashmir Valley.
The present petition arose from a long-standing land dispute concerning property measuring 17 kanals and 2 marlas situated at Village Sarab, Tehsil Shopian (now Keegam), District Shopian. Respondents 4 to 7 had earlier filed a suit regarding the said land before the Court of Munsiff, Pulwama, asserting that their adverse possession had matured into ownership rights. The suit was instituted against persons named Triloki Nath, Soom Nath, and Rattan Lal.
It has been averred that summons were not issued to the said defendants and that a compromise was allegedly manipulated through impersonation, resulting in a decree by the Court of Munsiff, Pulwama. The decree declared respondents 4 to 7 as owners of the land in question. According to the applicants, who are the successors of the original defendants, their predecessors had migrated to Jammu and had no knowledge of the suit proceedings at Pulwama.
Subsequently, the original defendants filed an application before the Munsiff Court, Pulwama, seeking cancellation of the decree on the grounds of alleged forgery, and also approached the High Court for transfer of the proceedings to Jammu due to threat perception prevailing at that time. The High Court granted the transfer, and the case was moved to the Munsiff Court, Jammu.
During the course of proceedings before the Jammu court, the original defendants, Triloki Nath and Soom Nath, passed away, and their legal representatives, now applicants in the present petition, were substituted in their place. The compromise decree earlier passed by the Munsiff Court, Pulwama, was subsequently set aside. The applicants, as defendants, thereafter filed their written statement, and by order dated 14.08.2014, the Munsiff Court appointed the concerned Tehsildar as receiver of the property.
On 16.11.2023, the suit was dismissed by the Munsiff Court, Jammu, with further directions for the receiver to hand over possession of the property to the applicants. The receiver complied with the court’s direction and delivered possession to the applicants vide order dated 14.02.2024.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit and the subsequent possession order, respondents 4 to 7 approached the Srinagar Wing of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filing CM(M) No.95/2024 along with CM No.1705/2024 to challenge the aforementioned orders.
The applicants then approached the Jammu Wing of the High Court seeking transfer of the proceedings from the Srinagar Wing to the Jammu Wing, citing security concerns and threat perception that had previously formed the basis for the transfer of the suit from Pulwama to Jammu.
The applicants contended that they have faced longstanding threat perception as migrants from the Kashmir Valley, and cited that, based on this threat perception, the original suit was earlier transferred from the Munsiff Court, Pulwama, to Jammu. It was submitted that the present challenge initiated by respondents 4 to 7 in the Srinagar Wing would place the applicants at a disadvantage due to security concerns associated with travel to and participation in proceedings at Srinagar.
The respondents opposed the transfer application and submitted that permission had been duly obtained to file CM(M) No.95/2024 at the Srinagar Wing. It was further submitted that the petitioners could adequately participate through available virtual platforms.
The Court took note of the applicants’ apprehensions regarding the threat perception and their historical migration from Kashmir due to prevailing militancy. The Chief Justice recorded that “before two decades ago, when the plaintiffs-respondents 4 to 7 herein had filed the suit against the applicants herein before the Court of Munsiff, Pulwama, Srinagar, admittedly, there was threat perception to the applicants herein on account of militancy related activities and it was not possible for the applicants herein to pursue their case at Srinagar nor there was the concept of virtual proceedings.”
The Court further recorded that the earlier transfer of the suit to Jammu was justified by the prevailing circumstances in the Kashmir Valley at that time. The Court observed that, “on the application of the defendants in the said suit, the suit came to be transferred to Jammu keeping in view the prevailing circumstances in Kashmir Valley.”
However, the Chief Justice also noted that technological advancements now provided a viable alternative to physical appearance. Referring to the present context, the Court stated, “though the threat perception to the applicants/petitioners herein cannot be denied even at this stage, however, keeping in view the virtual facility available in both the Wings of this High Court, the applicants/petitioners herein have the option to attend the hearing virtually through their counsel from Jammu itself.”
The Court considered the broader availability of virtual court proceedings, which enable litigants and counsel to present arguments remotely, thereby addressing logistical and security-related apprehensions raised by the applicants.
In view of the considerations recorded, the Court declined the transfer request but provided specific directions to ensure accessibility and participation. The operative part of the order reads, “this application is disposed of with a direction to the Registrar (Judicial), Srinagar Wing to provide virtual mode link to the applicants/petitioners herein as well as their counsel well in advance as and when CM(M) No.95/2024 along with CM No.1705/2024 is listed for hearing, so that the applicants and their counsel could appear and project their case from Jammu itself.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate.
Advocate for Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Mohd. Yawar Hussain, Advocate.
Case Title: Dileep Kumar Raina and others vs. UT of J&K and others
Case Number: TrP(C) No.19/2024 and CM No.2486/2024
Bench: Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan
[Read/Download order]
