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. 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
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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
