SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir Ladakh High Court has refused to permit further construction on disputed land in Anantnag, upholding orders directing the parties to maintain status quo over the property amid allegations that a residential structure was being raised in violation of an existing court order.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed a petition filed by Abdul Rehman Wagay Gawgojree, holding that he had failed to establish grounds for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, which governs the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.
The court observed that where a party is accused of wilfully disobeying judicial orders, “no equity or permission to construct can be extended to him/her”.
The judgment, pronounced on October 9, 2026, upheld the orders of the Munsiff Court, Shangus, dated June 18, 2025, and the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, dated June 15, 2026, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the nature and use of the disputed property.
The dispute concerns land measuring 3 kanals, 13 marlas and 5 sirsai, comprising several survey numbers in Mouza Kaganhal, Anantnag district. The underlying civil suit concerns ownership, inheritance and partition of property left behind by the parties’ deceased uncle, Ismail Wagay.
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging both orders, arguing that the dispute had been amicably settled in January 2022 through the intervention of local residents and that the parties had subsequently acted upon the settlement by constructing residential buildings on their respective portions of land.
Advocate Bhat Fayaz, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the lower courts had failed to consider the subsequent developments and the alleged compromise between the parties. He argued that the respondents had constructed houses after the settlement, including one with financial assistance under the Indira Awaas Yojana, while the petitioner had raised the first floor of his residential-cum-commercial building and taken further construction up to the slab level.
The petitioner contended that the respondents had suppressed material facts about the settlement and the construction undertaken thereafter. He also argued that leaving the unfinished structure exposed to rain and moisture could cause structural deterioration and financial loss.
The petitioner offered to furnish an undertaking to demolish the construction if the respondents ultimately succeeded in the civil suit. He relied on earlier judicial decisions to argue that construction could be permitted subject to such an undertaking.
However, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below.
Examining the scope of its supervisory jurisdiction, Justice Oswal relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, which held that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 does not act as an appellate court to reassess evidence or substitute its own findings for those of subordinate courts.
The Supreme Court had held that such jurisdiction was intended to correct grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse or violations of fundamental principles of law and justice, and should be exercised sparingly.
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shruti Manav Sharma v. Sunaina Singh, which reiterated that an order granting or refusing temporary injunction is discretionary and should not ordinarily be disturbed unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or in disregard of settled legal principles.
Applying these principles, Justice Oswal held that the trial court had examined the record before directing the parties to maintain status quo and that its exercise of discretion could not be described as perverse or contrary to the record. The High Court also found no jurisdictional error in the appellate court’s decision to uphold the order.
The court noted that the original suit had been filed by Nazir Ahmad Wagay and another, seeking a declaration of their ownership rights and entitlement to inherit the share left by their uncle, besides partition of the properties by metes and bounds and separate possession of their respective shares.
The plaintiffs had also sought directions for the demolition of structures and a plinth allegedly raised by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings in violation of the status quo order.
In his written statement, the petitioner disputed the claim that the properties remained jointly owned and unpartitioned. He maintained that private partitions had taken place several years earlier and that the parties had occupied their respective portions. He also referred to an alleged gift of land by Ismail Wagay to the plaintiffs’ son and the subsequent distribution of other portions among family members.
The trial court had initially directed the defendants to maintain status quo on March 13, 2019. After an amended plaint was filed on July 4, 2024, the court, on June 18, 2025, reiterated the direction while disposing of an application seeking interim relief.
While challenging that order, the petitioner also relied on the alleged settlement and subsequent construction to argue that the circumstances had materially changed.
The trial court, however, had noted that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking partition of the property, which it considered inconsistent with his stand that the land had already been partitioned. It also took note of allegations that the petitioner and his son had attempted to alter the character of the property despite the subsisting status quo orders, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings.
The Principal District Judge, Anantnag, upheld the trial court’s decision, observing that the disputed questions concerning co-ownership, inheritance, partition and alleged unauthorised construction required determination during the trial.
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for permission to complete the construction, Justice Oswal held that an undertaking to demolish a structure following an adverse decision did not confer an automatic right to continue building during pending litigation.
“Each case turns on its own individual facts and circumstances,” the court observed, distinguishing the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner.
The High Court concluded that both the trial court and the appellate court had rightly passed the challenged orders and that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The petition was accordingly dismissed as being without merit.
Advocate Mian Tufail appeared for the respondents, while Faizan Ali, Central Government Counsel, also appeared in the matter.
