Selective Litigation Not Permissible: Jammu Kashmir High Court Rules | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the government cannot adopt a “pick and choose” approach in deciding which judicial rulings to accept and which to challenge after prolonged delay, emphasizing the importance of legal certainty and judicial discipline.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against a writ court order directing issuance of Fard Intikhab and registration of land documents in favour of the respondents.

The Bench observed that a Single Judge ruling that has remained unchallenged and operative for a significant period attains the status of a settled legal position and should not ordinarily be disturbed unless it is demonstrably per incuriam or patently erroneous.

“In the realm of jurisprudence, legal certainty is as indispensable as the administration of justice,” the Court held, adding that unsettling long-standing decisions would undermine judicial stability.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated August 5, 2024, in which the writ court had directed the Tehsildar, Vijaypur, to issue Fard Intikhab for land measuring nine kanals in Village Bara, District Samba, and to process its registration in accordance with law.

The respondents had applied for issuance of Fard Intikhab for sale of the land, but their application was rejected on the ground that it violated Government Order No. S-432 of 1966, which restricts alienation of such land without prior government permission.

Challenging this, the respondents filed a writ petition, relying on the 2017 judgment in Mohammad Akbar Shah v. State of JK and Others, where the High Court had held that the requirement of prior government permission for alienation of such land had become otiose and did not affect the owner’s right to transfer the property, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.

The Division Bench noted that this legal position had held the field for nearly a decade and had never been challenged by the government. It ruled that once such a judgment attains finality, it becomes a benchmark for subsequent cases.

“The Government cannot be permitted to resort to policy of ‘pick and choose’ which judgments it accepts and which it assails years later,” the Court said, warning that selective challenges violate the principle of finality and judicial discipline.

The Court also referred to Supreme Court precedents, including Raj Narain Pandey v. Sant Prasad Tewari and Kattite Valappil Pathumma v. Taluk Land Board, underscoring the doctrine of stare decisis and cautioning against disturbing long-settled interpretations that have governed transactions over time.

Noting that the appellants failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the 2017 ruling or provide compelling grounds to deviate from it, the Bench declined to interfere with the writ court’s decision.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the directions issued by the writ court were upheld.