by Asif Iqbal Naik
SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has stayed the operation of an interim order passed by the Principal District Judge, Kishtwar, in a dispute involving land claimed to be Waqf property, while directing that the residential houses constructed on the land of two Ziarats remain protected in accordance with an earlier judgment.
The order was passed by Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi on October 12, 2026, in a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the Jammu and Kashmir Waqf Board and another appellant against Masood Ahmad Siddiqui and others.
The appeal challenges an order dated August 7, 2026, passed by the Principal District Judge, Kishtwar, in a civil suit titled Masood Ahmad Siddiqui versus J&K Waqf Board. The trial court had restrained the Waqf Board and other defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the disputed property without following due process of law.
In its October 12 order, the High Court admitted the appeal and observed that a prima facie case had been made out against the respondents. It directed that the operation of the August 7 order and the proceedings arising from it before the Principal District Judge, Kishtwar, shall remain stayed until the next date of hearing, subject to objections.
However, the High Court made it clear that the plaintiffs would remain protected only to the extent of occupying their residential houses constructed on the land of the two Ziarats as lessees of Waqf property, strictly in accordance with the earlier judgment dated April 2, 2026.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 26, 2026.
Dispute over 80 kanals and six marlas
According to the court order, the plaintiffs had approached the Principal District Judge, Kishtwar, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to protect their possession over land measuring 80 kanals and six marlas, situated at Moza Kishtwar.
The disputed property comprises several khasra numbers and includes constructions raised on the land. The plaintiffs had also sought to restrain the Waqf Board and persons acting under its authority from raising permanent or temporary constructions, changing the nature of the property or creating third-party interests without following due process of law.
The plaintiffs argued before the trial court that they had no alternative statutory forum available to them because no Waqf Tribunal had been constituted in Jammu and Kashmir. They maintained that the civil court was therefore the appropriate forum to seek protection of their possession.
The Principal District Judge, Kishtwar, had accepted their plea for interim protection, holding that they had established a prima facie case and could suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted. The court had also observed that the defendants could not interfere with their possession without following the mandate of law.
Waqf Board challenges civil court’s jurisdiction
Challenging the trial court’s order, the Waqf Board argued before the High Court that the civil suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995.
Senior Advocate P.N. Raina, appearing for the appellants along with advocates Ayaz Lone and A.A. Hamal, contended that Sections 83 and 85 of the Act restrict the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes relating to Waqf properties that fall within the statutory framework.
The appellants argued that amendments introduced in 2013 and 2025 had to be considered while determining the appropriate forum for resolving the dispute. They also relied on the provision under Section 83(2), which states that an aggrieved person may approach the High Court directly if no Waqf Tribunal exists or the Tribunal is not functioning.
The Waqf Board maintained that the disputed land was Waqf property under its control and management and that the civil court should not have entertained the suit.
The appellants further contended that an earlier High Court judgment had already addressed the rights of the occupants in relation to the property, protecting their residential houses while not extending the same protection to the remaining land.
Earlier High Court judgment forms key part of the dispute
During the proceedings, the Waqf Board’s counsel referred to a judgment dated April 2, 2026, passed in OWP No. 97/1979, clubbed with OWP No. 441/2003, concerning the disputed property.
As recorded in the latest order, the earlier judgment permitted the petitioners concerned to occupy residential houses constructed on the land of two Ziarats in their capacity as lessees of Waqf property, in accordance with directions contained in an earlier order dated April 30, 1982.
The Waqf Board argued that the protection granted by the earlier judgment was confined to the residential houses and did not confer a right to occupy the remaining land.
It was further submitted that the plaintiffs in the pending civil suit were descendants of the petitioners involved in the earlier writ proceedings.
The High Court order also records reference to proceedings in LPA No. 112/2026, in which an order dated June 29, 2026, noted that accounts and records were being maintained in terms of a Supreme Court order dated January 2, 2006, and could be produced before the court whenever required.
Respondents oppose the appeal
Advocate Rahul Sharma, appearing for the respondents, opposed the Waqf Board’s challenge, arguing that the absence of a duly constituted Waqf Tribunal had left the plaintiffs with no option but to approach the civil court for protection of their possession.
The respondents also maintained that they could not be dispossessed from the property without following the procedure prescribed by law. Their counsel referred to Section 54 of the Waqf Act while arguing that the appellants were allegedly attempting to dispossess them without following the prescribed procedure.
After hearing the parties, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi admitted the appeal, issued notice—which was waived by counsel for the respondents—and ordered that the impugned trial court order and related proceedings remain stayed until the next hearing.
The High Court’s interim direction limits the protection available to the plaintiffs to their residential houses constructed on the land of the two Ziarats as lessees of Waqf property, in accordance with the April 2, 2026 judgment.
The matter is scheduled to come up again on November 26, 2026, when the court will consider the appeal further.
