Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 21.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Vishal Singh, age 29, son of late Sh. Ravi Singh, residing at Old Satwari, Jammu Cantt.
  • Respondents: 1) State of J&K (Chief Secretary & Home Department); 2) Jammu Municipal Corporation (JMC); 3) Divisional Commissioner, Jammu Division; 4) Deputy Commissioner, Jammu; 5) Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu; 6) Sh. Raju Choudhary; 7) Sh. Sanjay Mahajan; 8) Joint Commissioner, JMC; 9) Sh. Vinod Sharma, Joint Commissioner, JMC; 10) Sh. Anil Goswami, IAS, Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister.
  • Writ Relief Sought: Under Article 226, petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and directions to (a) restrain JMC from sanctioning any residential/commercial structure on land measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas (Khasra No. 192 Min, Khewat No. 1, Khata No. 1) at Channi Rama, Jammu; (b) restrain private respondents (Nos 6 & 7) from constructing on the said land; (c) initiate criminal proceedings against them.
  • Background Facts:
  • The disputed parcel forms part of a larger 7 kanals tract (Khasra No. 192 Min).
  • Civil suit filed by respondents 6 & 7 before the 3rd Additional Munsiff, 1st Class, Jammu, resulted in a status‑quo order on 04.03.2005.
  • Petitioner filed a suit on 19.05.2005 before the 1st Civil Subordinate Judge, Jammu, seeking a permanent injunction; status‑quo was also directed.
  • SDPO East, Jammu, report dated 02.08.2007 observed excavation activity on the plot (approximately 20 kanals) and sought clarification on the scope of the status‑quo order.
  • Building Permission No. 299/BP/07 dated 25.07.2007 was granted by JMC to respondents 6 & 7 after verification, despite earlier refusal by the Naib Tehsildar (order dated 11.05.2005) to attest mutation.
  • Petitioners withdrew successive suits (19.05.2005 suit, 12.07.2007 suit, 07.09.2007 suit) after learning of the building permission; the 07.09.2007 suit was stayed under Section 10 CPC.
  • The 3rd Additional Munsiff, on 27.08.2007, declined to order demarcation of the land, citing the pending civil dispute.
  • Allegations: Petitioners alleged collusion between respondents 6 & 7, officials (including respondent 10, Anil Goswami), and that the building permission was obtained through undue influence.
  • Court’s Observations:
  • No specific material evidence was produced to demonstrate that respondent 10 exercised influence.
  • The dispute revolves around title and possession, matters that require evidentiary adjudication in a civil court.
  • The civil suit before the 3rd Additional Munsiff is the competent forum; extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and not a substitute for ordinary remedies.
  • Cited Supreme Court precedents (Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez K.T., 2019 SCC 329; State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh, 1993 SCC 306; D.L.F. Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Municipal Corporation, AIR 1976 SC 386) emphasizing that factual disputes on title/possession are unsuitable for writ petitions.
  • Petitioners’ pattern of instituting and subsequently abandoning civil suits demonstrates that they cannot now invoke writ jurisdiction for the same relief.
  • Allegations of collusion and mala‑fides were deemed unsubstantiated and based on conjecture.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.
  • Any interim direction or order operating in the matter is vacated.
  • No further relief is granted to the petitioner.

Topics: Land Dispute, Writ Petition, Building Permission