SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a police case against the Tehsildar of Thanamandi and the Executive Officer of the local municipal committee over an alleged attempt to demarcate land in the possession of a court, ruling that the magistrate had improperly treated an administrative communication as a criminal complaint.
Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment dated October 5, 2026, set aside FIR No. 117/2018 registered at Thanamandi police station under Sections 447-A and 427 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), along with the proceedings arising from it.
The court held that the communication submitted by a court chowkidar to the presiding officer had not sought registration of an FIR and could not properly be treated as an application for criminal proceedings. It said the matter should instead have been addressed through the judicial administration.
The case arose from allegations that, on July 6, 2018, unidentified persons entered the court complex at Thanamandi and carried out demarcation for the proposed construction of shops, damaging barbed wire in the process. The complainant subsequently alleged that employees of the tehsil office and the municipal committee had undertaken the activity.
Acting on the information, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thanamandi, directed the station house officer to register an FIR against the Tehsildar and the Executive Officer and investigate the matter in accordance with the law.
The two officials challenged the FIR, arguing that the complainant had not followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before approaching the magistrate. They also submitted that the application was not supported by an affidavit.
The officials maintained that they had acted on directions from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Thanamandi, and the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, to transfer four marlas and five sarsai of land under Khasra No. 170 to Nadim Ahmed, son of Manzoor Hussain, a resident of Thana village. His land of the same measurement under Khasra No. 113 had been acquired for the construction of the Haspulate-to-Dhok road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), they submitted.
Examining the records, Justice Dhar noted that 4 kanals and 19 marlas of land under Khasra No. 170 was recorded in the name of the Revenue Department but had remained in the possession of the Munsiff Court, Thanamandi, for several years.
The judgment observed that the chowkidar had informed the presiding officer about the alleged attempt to demarcate part of the land occupied by the court. The communication contained no request for registration of an FIR, the court noted, describing it as information provided to a superior officer in an administrative capacity.
Justice Dhar said the magistrate should have referred the matter to the District Judge and the High Court for appropriate administrative action rather than directing the registration of a criminal case.
The court held that the magistrate’s approach was contrary to the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287, and had given a criminal character to what was essentially an administrative dispute.
However, while quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings, the High Court expressed serious concern over the officials’ alleged attempt to demarcate land that had long been occupied by the Munsiff Court without informing its presiding officer or the District Judge.
Justice Dhar described the conduct of the officials and their superiors as reflecting high-handedness and said the matter warranted action at the administrative level.
The court directed that the Registrar General of the High Court could take up the issue with the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, to facilitate its resolution through administrative channels.
The judgment was delivered at Jammu on October 5, 2026.
