HC slams ‘Frivolous Litigation’, restores JDA’s stand on Bahu Land

16/09/2025

Jammu, Sep 15: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh has set aside an order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu, which had directed status quo in a protracted land dispute between the Jammu Develop-ment Authority (JDA) and private claimants. Terming the repeated litigation by the petitioners as a "gross abuse of process of law", the Court upheld the earlier trial court order in favour of the JDA.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, while pronouncing judgment, observed that the plaintiffs had engaged in repeated and frivolous attempts to secure interim relief against the JDA over 21 kanals of land situated at Rakh Bahu, Jammu. The Court held that the appellate court had erred in reversing the trial court's findings, despite the issue having already been settled up to the High Court in earlier rounds of litigation.
The case was argued on behalf of the JDA by advocates Sachin Dogra and Rahul Parihar, while the respondents were represented by advocate D.S. Saini.
The controversy relates to a civil suit filed by Saminder Singh and others, who claimed possession of land at Rakh Bahu on the basis of alleged mutation entries under the now-scrapped J&K State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001. The JDA, however, maintained that the land formed part of 655 kanals transferred to it by the government, on which commercial structures had already been built. The petitioners, according to the JDA, had tampered with documents to stake a false claim and had earlier filed multiple suits and writ petitions which were dismissed at various stages. In 2023 and again in 2024, both the trial court and the High Court had refused them interim relief.
Despite these findings, the 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu, in July 2025 allowed an appeal and directed parties to maintain status quo. This prompted the JDA to approach the High Court. Justice Dhar found that the appellate court had "fallen prey to the mischievous mechanization and litigious attitude of the plaintiffs" by reopening an already settled issue. "The present proceedings are the third attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to seek an interim injunction against the defendant in respect of the same land on the same facts and material," the judgment noted, adding that such repeated litigation cannot be permitted.
The High Court also found fault with the appellate court's reliance on a mutation attested in favour of the plaintiffs. Referring to a revenue report that termed the entry as forged and non-existent in the official register, the Court ruled that a "mutation which is non-est in the eyes of law cannot form the basis of a prima facie case."
Justice Dhar cited Supreme Court precedents to emphasise that principles of res judicata apply not only across different proceedings but also at subsequent stages of the same proceedings. "No one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over," the Court observed, restoring the trial court's order of March 2025 which had rejected the plaintiffs' plea for interim relief.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty