DB upholds Govt's stand in Roshni Act case, rejects Ownership claims
12/11/2025
SRINAGAR, Nov 11: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem on Tuesday dismissed a set of three connected appeals filed by Ghulam Rasool Mistri and others, terming the prolonged litigation a "classic case of re-litigation and multiplicity of proceedings," and holding that the appellants' claims under the now-defunct Roshni Act stood extinguished.
The bench was hearing LPAOW No. 68/2018, 116/2018, and 118/2018, all arising from writ petitions decided earlier by a Single Bench in July 2018. The appellants had challenged orders related to ownership and possession of State land in Rampora, Chattabal, and Batamaloo, Srinagar, claiming ownership rights under the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001, commonly known as the Roshni Act.
The Division Bench noted that the appellants had been "repeatedly approaching various forums on the same subject matter, despite the issue having been settled earlier," and criticized the tendency to "infuse life into a dead horse." The court observed that the petitions represented "an abuse of the process of court and an attempt to justify unjust claims over State land."
The case background:
The appeals stemmed from disputes over approximately 41 kanals of land recorded in the names of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) after being acquired by the State in 1989. The appellants claimed possession and sought ownership under the Roshni Act, arguing parity with other landholders, including Mst. Zainab Begum and Mirza Maqsood Ali, whose applications were allegedly approved.
However, the court found that the land in question had already been formally transferred to the Corporation as early as 1992 and held that the petitioners' claims were factually untenable.
Observations of the Bench:
"The appellants have deliberately convoluted their presentation to prolong litigation and spawn multiplicity of proceedings," the judgment observed. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (AIR 1998 SC 1297), the bench emphasized that re-litigation amounts to abuse of process of court and wastes judicial time.
The court further held that since the Roshni Act had been declared unconstitutional and void ab initio by a Division Bench in Prof. S.K. Bhalla v. State of J&K (2020 5 JKJ 39 [HC]), no rights could be claimed under it. "Once the foundation has crumbled into constitutional nullity, the claimants cannot derive even an iota of benefit from a void statute," the court said.
Accordingly, all three appeals were dismissed, affirming the earlier judgment of the writ court.
Counsel for the parties:
o For the Appellant: Mr. Syed Mohtasim, Advocate, and Mr. Saqib Fayaz Khan, Advocate, vice Mr. Syed Manzoor, Advocate
o For the Respondents (State): Mr. Bikramandeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondents 1 to 7
o For Private Respondents: Mr. M.Y. Bhat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Hamja Prince, Advocate
Judgment Reserved on: October 16, 2025
Pronounced on: November 11, 2025.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|