J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of Injunction Plea in Agrarian Reforms Dispute [Read Order]

Jammu: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a petition challenging the orders of the trial and appellate courts, which had rejected an application for a Permanent Prohibitory Injunction filed by petitioners Ghulam Mohammad Reshi @ Gulla and another. In a judgment pronounced on December 5, 2025, the High Court affirmed the lower courts’ finding that the dispute primarily falls within the jurisdiction of authorities constituted under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, thereby barring the jurisdiction of the civil court.

The petitioners had filed a suit seeking a Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, claiming they were in physical cultivating possession of land measuring 5 kanals and 4 marlas in Village Brah, Tehsil Shangus, District Anantnag, and that mutation under Section 4 of the Act stood attested in their favour. They contended that their long possession, spanning over 50 years, had matured into title.

Conversely, the respondents argued that the suit was barred under Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 58 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules. The original defendant, whose interests are now represented by the respondents, claimed that mutation No. 652 under Section 7 of the Act was attested in his favour in 1987, making him entitled to resume 2 kanals and 12 marlas of the suit land. He stated that he could not take possession earlier due to the onset of militancy.

The trial court, the Sub-Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Anantnag, initially dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, observing that “the dispute between the parties is fundamentally pertaining to Agrarian Reforms Authorities and it is within the domain of the authorities and officers under the Act, and the civil court cannot interfere in such matters.” This was upheld by the learned District Judge, Anantnag, acting as the Appellate Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioners challenged the lower courts’ orders, arguing that the deletion of Section 19(3) of the Act restored jurisdiction to the civil court. They further contended that it was the duty of the trial court to determine “whether the defendant could seek possession of the suit land after 36 years of attestation of mutation under Section 7 of the Act in his favour, and whether the long possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land had matured into title in their favour.”

Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the case, considered “whether the learned trial court and the learned Appellate Court were justified in holding that the suit is not, prima facie, cognizable by a civil court.”

The court noted the bar under Section 25 of the Act and the elaborate procedure prescribed under Rule 21 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules for the resumption of land. Rule 21(5) explicitly “gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Officer to put the petitioner in possession of the resumed land.” The High Court concluded: “Therefore, prima facie, it appears that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the suit, which primarily pertain to the entitlement of the defendant to resume the suit land.” The court also held that the deletion of Section 19(3) of the Act had no bearing on the present case.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court held: “The view taken by the learned trial court, as upheld by the learned Appellate Court, that prima facie the civil court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in the suit, neither appears to be illegal nor perverse.”

Case Details:

Case Title: GHULAM MOHAMMAD RESHI @ GULLA AND ANOTHER v. SMT. KAMLA JI AND OTHERS

Case Number: CM(M) No. 124/2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR

Reserved on: 26.11.2025

Pronounced on: 05.12.2025

Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. Syed Wasiq

Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Showkat Ali Khan

[Read Order]