‘No Prior Permission Needed’: Jammu Kashmir High Court Dismisses UT Appeal in Land Sale Row, Upholds Owners’ Rights | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Union Territory administration, upholding a Single Judge’s ruling that landowners granted proprietary rights under a 1966 government order cannot be restrained from selling their land for want of prior government permission.

The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justice Rajnesh Oswal pronounced the judgment on April 28, 2026, after reserving it on April 7, 2026, in LPA No. 126/2025 arising out of WP(C) No. 1439/2024.

The appeal was filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli.

The respondents, Ravinder Kanta and others, were represented by Advocate Jagpaul Singh.

The case relates to a parcel of land measuring nine kanals under Khasra No. 153 in Village Bara, Tehsil Vijaypur of Samba district. The respondents, claiming ownership and possession, had applied online for issuance of a Fard Intikhab—a revenue extract required for executing a sale deed.

The application was rejected by the Tehsildar Vijaypur on the ground that the proposed sale violated Government Order No. S-432 of 1966 dated June 3, 1966. The order stipulates that land granted under it must be used for agricultural purposes and cannot be alienated without prior government permission.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the landowners approached the High Court. A Single Judge, by judgment dated August 5, 2024, allowed their petition and directed issuance of the Fard Intikhab and subsequent registration of the sale documents, relying on earlier judicial precedents.

Challenging the Single Judge’s decision, the UT administration argued that the 1966 order imposed a binding condition prohibiting sale without prior approval, and that the respondents had not sought such permission.

However, during the hearing, the Bench sought clarification on whether earlier judgments—particularly in the case of Mohammad Akbar Shah vs State of JK—which had interpreted the same provision, were ever challenged by the government. The State counsel conceded that no such challenge had been made.

The Division Bench noted that the legal position regarding the 1966 order had remained settled for nearly a decade, with courts consistently holding that the condition requiring prior government permission had become redundant over time.

Referring to established principles of judicial discipline and the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court observed that long-standing interpretations of law should not be unsettled without compelling reasons.

It held that selective challenges by the government—accepting some judgments while contesting others—would undermine legal certainty and stability.

The Bench further observed that changing socio-economic conditions had rendered earlier restrictions on land use less relevant, and that ownership rights could not be curtailed in the absence of a valid statutory bar.

Counsel for the respondents also informed the Court that the matter had effectively become infructuous, as the Fard Intikhab had already been issued and the sale deeds executed and registered.

While taking note of this submission, the Court proceeded to examine the legal issue and found no infirmity in the earlier judgment.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s ruling and reaffirmed that no prior government permission is required for alienation of such land, provided other statutory requirements are fulfilled.

The judgment reinforces the settled legal position governing land granted under the 1966 order and underscores the importance of consistency in judicial interpretation, particularly in matters affecting property rights and past transactions.