Case Name: Abdul Majid Dar Vs. Union Territory of J&K and Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2024 (Arising from SM No. 3659 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: 06 June 2025
Quorum: Hon’ble MR. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Instant has arisen out of the complaint filed by the petitioner, Mr. Am M Dar on the basis of the report published by Structural Consultants, a private company on 5th October 2020, regarding the unsound structure of the shops in his ancestral land. The petitioner owns 6 out of the 13 shops in the shopping line that exists on his ancestral piece of land. The structure on this property was inspected by a leading structural engineering company, whose report took note of the deep, visible and progressive cracks that had developed on the shop buildings and called for immediate renovation or repair to this regard, to prevent any mishaps.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint before R3, Station house officer, police station, Batamaloo, Srinagar. R3 filed a status report, specifically mentioning the complaint cum pre-information application received by the police post, Tengpora from the petitioner.
In reaction to this, an officer was appointed for inspecting the shopping line. The officer observed that the entire building had developed a significant number of cracks and concluded the building’s structural condition as bad.
This court on 27th June 2024, had issued a notice directing respondent no.3, the station house officer, police station, Batamaloo, Srinagar, to apprise the steps that had been taken in furtherance of the alleged complaint filed by the petitioner and to file action taken report in this regard.
In the concerned complaint, the petitioner alleges inaction by the police authority upon the complaint filed by the petitioner and the delay in evicting the occupants of the shopping buildings in the concerned plot.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether the concerned police authority has competency in the matter at hand?
- Whether the matter is maintainable within the writ jurisdiction of this court?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226, Constitution of India
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS
The petitioner primarily contends that the shopping buildings in question are in a dilapidated condition and are highly to come down and cause severe damage to the goods and materials lying inside the shops and even to human lives. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the complaint filed by the petitioner before respondent 3 has been disregarded by the authority. This indifference has prompted the petitioner to approach this court for protecting his legal and fundamental rights.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The respondents in the present appeal contend that the detention of the detenu must be upheld since he is violating the conditions of the bail imposed upon him in the cases which are considered for passing the order of detention.
ANALYSIS
The present petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has not arrayed revenue authorities and the tenants against whom the eviction is sought. Despite being civil in nature, only police authorities have been arrayed as party-respondents, who have very limited roles in disputes of such nature. The respondent’s involvement is restricted to maintaining law and order, which is not a matter of concern in the instant petition. The court reaffirmed that police authorities must not interfere in civil disputes unless a criminal offence is involved. The instant petition is purely civil in nature, thus respondent 3 is not competent in the first place to deal with the complaint filed by the petitioner. The authority before whom the complaint was filed, is not authorized to give such report regarding the safety of buildings. Matters of such nature, exclusively falls within the ambit of competent court having jurisdiction. A landlord cannot approach the police authority to directly evict tenants.
The said complaint has been made on the basis of the report dated 5th October 2020, published by Structural Engineering Company, a private agency. Additionally, it has been procured by the petitioner on his own, without any explicit direction from any Government Agency. Hence it has no relevance in the eyes of law and cannot be acted upon. The report cannot be relied upon due to this very reason.
After considering the submissions made by both parties, the court is of the impression that the present petition is a mere pressure tactic used by the petitioner in order to indirectly acquire favoring direction from this court. The petitioner has substantially erred in filing the contested complaint before R3 raising contentions regarding the poor state of the building. Instead of seeking the assistance of a competent authority, the petitioner rushed to the police station with a motive to evict the tenants from the shops in question without arraying them as party respondents. This act of omission is perilous to the interests of the persons sought to be evicted.
Subsequently, the bench highlighted the petitioner’s default in disclosing any infringement of public law rights or any other element of public law that would’ve warranted the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010), the Supreme Court has expressly declared that property disputes or disputes between landlord and tenant should not be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226. In addition to this, the apex court has also warned about entertaining applications under Article 227 presenting them as writ petitions. This position has been further reinforced in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v Union of India (2015), wherein the court clarified that the primary objective of writ jurisdiction is to secure public law remedies and hence must not be invoked for adjudicating private contractual disputes, especially those involving resolution of factual issues and those governed by a complete and adequate statutory remedy.
JUDGMENT
The High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the writ petition is devoid of any merit being misconceived. However, the court points out that this dismissal shall not come in the way of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under law.
CONCLUSION
The instant judgment delivered by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh is an apt illustration for a recurring misuse of legal provisions by parties to disputes to evade justice and accountability, and thereby cause obstruction to the due course of justice. By clarifying the strict distinction between procedures that are overseen by police authorities and civil disputes, the court removes any existing ambiguity on the matter. Lastly, the court offers a precise understanding about the limits of the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYANA THERESA XAVIER
