DB dismisses appeal seeking exchange of Kahcharaie land, says no enforceable Right over common village property

20/02/2026

SRINAGAR, Feb 19: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by a Baramulla resident seeking exchange of common village grazing land (Kahcharaie/Shamilat Deh) with proprietary land, holding that after the amendment to Section 133(2) of the Land Revenue Act, such exchange is no longer legally permissible.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the judgment of the Writ Court and ruled that the Deputy Commissioner no longer has statutory competence to sanction exchange of Kahcharaie land in lieu of private land following the substitution of Section 133(2) vide notification dated October 26, 2020.
The Bench dismissed LPA No. 21/2023, filed by Mehraj-ud-Din Malik, as being devoid of merit.
The appellant was represented by Advocate Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, while the respondents were represented by Deputy Advocate General Hakeem Aman Ali.
The appellant, a resident of village Pariswani in Tehsil Kwarhama, Baramulla, had claimed that he applied for exchange of six marlas of Kahcharaie land under Survey No. 292 with his proprietary land measuring six marlas under Survey No. 284, contending that both parcels were adjacent, of equal value and suitable for grazing purposes.
He alleged discrimination on the ground that a similar exchange application filed by his uncle Abdul Rahman had earlier been processed and approved, but his request was not entertained by the authorities.
The respondents, including the UT administration and revenue authorities, argued that by the time Malik's case came up for consideration, the amended Section 133(2) had come into force, withdrawing the Collector's power to grant such permission.
The Writ Court had earlier dismissed Malik's petition, holding that exchange of proprietary land with encroached Kahcharaie land was not permissible under the amended provision and no writ of mandamus could be issued.
Before the Division Bench, Malik contended that since he had approached authorities prior to October 26, 2020, his case should have been decided under the pre-amended law and the amendment should not be applied retrospectively.
However, the Bench held that mere exchange of communications or preliminary field staff exercise does not confer any vested right.
"Until and unless the competent authority considered the case under the pre-amended provision, the appellant does not acquire any enforceable right," the court observed.
The Bench also noted that the appellant failed to place on record even the original application for exchange or any revenue document proving ownership and possession of the proprietary land offered in lieu of Kahcharaie land.
The court pointed out contradictions regarding the date of filing the application and remarked that the appellant appeared to be "labouring under grave confusion with regard to facts."
A significant aspect highlighted by the Bench was the appellant's admission that he was a minor when the application was moved through his uncle.
The court reiterated that a minor lacks capacity to contract or transfer immovable property, and any such offer would be void unless made through a duly appointed guardian.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab (2011), which directed all State governments to evict illegal encroachments from Gram Sabha/Shamilat land meant for common village use.
The Bench held that Kahcharaie land is community property and cannot be regularised or encroached upon through private exchanges.
"The appellant has no enforceable right either to illegally encroach upon the Kahcharaie land or to maintain a writ of mandamus for its enforcement," the court said.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and vacated all interim directions, affirming that the amended provision applies fully to the appellant's case.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty