Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Union Of India & Ors vs Anwar Ul Islam Shaheen & Anr on 7 October, 2025
Author: Rahul Bharti
Bench: Rahul Bharti
1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM No.4779/2024 In
RFA No.58/2024
Reserved on: 09.04.2025
Pronounced on: 07.10.2025
Union of India & Ors.
...Appellant/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Masooda Jan, CGSC.
Vs.
Anwar ul Islam Shaheen & Anr.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mehraj ud Sofi, Advocate with
Mr. Ibrahim Mehraj, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE
ORDER
1. All the five appellants in the present time barred preferred civil 1st appeal under section 96 read with Order 41 of the Jammu & Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure, Svt., 1977 were the defendants in a civil suit preferred in the year 2016 by the two respondents herein, before the court of learned Principal District Judge Baramulla which then stood transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Sopore wherein by virtue of a judgment dated 20.06.2020 the suit came to be decreed.
2
2. The suit of the respondents came to be decreed to the following effect:-
"The plaintiffs are entitled to receive rent for the suit property comprising of land measuring 23 kanals and 14 marlas and two structures situated at Jalal Abad Sopore being in use and occupation of the defendants 1 to 5, and defendants 1 to 5 are directed to pay the rent in accordance to the latest schedule issued by the competent authority from the date of occupation i.e. 17.03.2011 till in their possession as-
a) for land @ 16,875/- per kanal per annum as per order no DDCB/2010/1799-10705 dt 23.01.2010 (SRO 104 dt 11.03.2008) and from 16.02.2013 as per SRO 66 dt 21 Feb 2017 @ 27,843/- per kanal per annum.
b) for two structures (@) Rs 20,069/- from date of occupation ie 17.03.2011 till March 2013 and (@ Rs 23,254/- from April 2013 as per order no DDCB/405 dt 12.00 2015 till date with interest @ 8% till its realization, as the defendants have not paid the rent in accordance with latest schedule on time..
Amount of Rs.10,23469/ for 3 structures, already received by the plaintiffs, shall be adjusted accordingly. Further defendants 1 to 5 shall pay the rent for the suit property in future in accordance with the schedule prevalent at the time till its occupation. No order cost."
3. The suit was duly contested by the appellants/defendants.
4. Following nine issues were framed in the civil suit:-
1. Whether the Army 22 RR has taken over the possession of the two structures and the land underneath and appurtenant thereto measuring 23 Kanals and 14 marlas situated at Jalal Abad Sopore owned by the plaintiffs from the CRPF in March, 2011? (OPP)
2. Whether the defendants are not paying the rent to the plaintiffs for occupation structures and the land measuring 23 the use and of two Kanal and 14 marlas situated at Jalal Abad sopore as per the latest schedules issued by the Government from time to time? (OPP)
3. Whether the plaintiffs Are entitled to rent for the two structures and land measuring 23 kanal and 14 marlas in accordance with the latest schedules issued by the Government-(OPP)
4. Whether the defendants are liable to pay the rent for the land under the direct occupation of the Army and the adjacent land affected by the occupation of Army (OPP)
5. Whether the defendant have paid the rent to the plaintiffs for the use and occupation of land measuring 6 Kanal 6 marlas and 2 sarsasie with two structures standing thereupon as fixed 4 Assessment by the District Rent Committee and as per the revised schedule prescribed by the Government? (OPD)
6. Whether plaintiffs the are receiving the rentals for the structures and the land, so the suit is hit by doctrine of estoppel? (OPD)
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs for want of cause of action is not maintainable thus liable to be dismissed? (OPD)
8. Whether the suit for want of valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction and payment of court fee is not maintainable? (OPD)
9. Relief.
5. The appellants now intend to assail the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 20.06.2020 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Sopore in present time barred civil 1st appeal under Order 96 read with section 41 of the J&K Code of Civil Procedure Svt., 1977.
6. As the origin of the suit had taken place under said J&K Code of Civil Procedure Svt., 1977, as such, the maintainability of the appeal is to be governed by the said Code and under the spell of J&K Limitation Act, 1938 AD.
7. As the civil 1st appeal is time barred suffering delay of 1411 days, as such, is accompanied with an application CM No.4779/2024 for condonation of delay. 5
8. The respondents are vehemently opposing said application CM No. 4779/2024 by submission of their objections filed on 04.04.2025.
9. If this Court is to go by reference of the averments as made in the condonation of delay application CM No. 4779/2024, then it surely warrants an outright dismissal without labouring even an ordinary application of mind muchless judicial or, as there is nothing worth name of facts in the application as to what constrained the appellants in not acting timely in the matter of coming forward with the institution of the civil 1st appeal within the prescribed limitation period of 90 days under article 116 of the J&K Limitation Act, 1938 AD.
10. The condonation of delay application is literally a one page application in which the Covid-19 is the purported reason being given, as if Covid-19's after effects are still operating to disable the appellants in the matter of attending to administration of affairs, official or otherwise.
11. In the application, which is accompanied with an affidavit of the Assistant Defence Estates Officer (ADEO), Baramulla, UT of J&K, it is being stated that when the execution came to be taken out by the respondents that it occurred to the appellants to come forward with the civil first appeal.
6
12. The respondents, from their end, have taken a strong exception to the plea of condonation of delay made by the appellants, by assailing the conduct of omission of the appellants even by mentioning the fact that after passing of the judgment and decree, at the end of the appellants some communications were exchanged in the matter of the settlement of rent of the suit land and the structures thereupon in favour of the respondents.
13. The respondents have cited the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of "Shivamma (Dead) By LRS Vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors." Civil Appeal No. 11794/2025, to lend weight in plea to dismiss condonation of delay plea of the appellant.
14. As this Court has already observed that the application, on its own worth, does not warrant any indulgence except that of rejection but considering the fact that the appellants are engaged in discharge of sovereign functions in the matter of carrying out not only law and order maintenance duties but also protecting the Inhabitants of the UT of J&K from suffering any wrongs by acts of militancy and for that purpose of being stationed, the use and occupation of the private property is rendered indispensible and on account of that exigency sometimes without proper legal authorization, 7 use and occupation of the private property comes to be availed resulting in litigation later in point of time.
15. The present case is one of such an eventuality and therefore, in the interest of justice this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 1411 days and entertain the civil 1st appeal for its adjudication on merits.
16. CM No. 4779/2024 is, thus, allowed at the costs of ₹10,000/- to be deposited by the appellants in the J&K Yateem Khana, Bemina Srinagar and receipt produced on next date.
RFA No. 58/2024
17. Admit.
18. Issue notice.
19. Advocate Mr.Mehraj-ud-din Sofi accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
20. Since the present civil 1st appeal is against a decree which has a monetary content bearing an obligation of payment upon the appellants as such, the appellants are directed to deposit the entire up-to-date rent arrears as per the decree and judgment dated 20.06.2020 within a period of two months from the date of this order, upon deposit of which the execution proceedings with respect to judgment and decree in reference shall come to stay. 8
21. List the RFA No.58/2024 on 10.11.2025.
22. Send for the record of civil suit file from the court below.
( RAHUL BHARTI ) JUDGE Srinagar 07.10.2025 Muzammil. Q