Common Lands Act Has No Jurisdiction in Urban Areas: J&K High Court Slams Misuse of Statute Against Private Citizen

In a sharply worded ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu declared that authorities cannot invoke the J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 in areas falling within municipal limits. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, delivering judgment in Shafiq Anjum v. State of J&K and Others (OWP No. 332/2017), observed:
“The Common Lands Act, 1956, by its own language under Section 1(4), stands excluded from areas notified as municipalities. The respondents themselves concede this. Invoking a law which does not apply is not just erroneous—it is wholly without jurisdiction.”

"Jagpal Singh Judgment Cannot Be Misused to Target Urban Property Owners": Court Clarifies Landmark Ruling Applies Only to Rural Common Land

The respondents had justified their seizure of building materials and initiation of FIR by citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396. But the High Court was categorical in rejecting this misuse.
Justice Kazmi held:
“The directions in Jagpal Singh were issued in the context of Gram Sabha, Gram Panchayat, Poramboke, or Shamlat lands—none of which describe the property in question. Applying those directions to land situated within a municipal area and recorded in the names of private individuals is a distortion of the law.”

"Land May Be Marked as Gair Mumkin Talai—But Ownership Rights Still Prevail": Court Upholds Private Title Despite Classification

One of the central contentions revolved around the land’s classification as Gair Mumkin Talai (uncultivable pond) in the revenue records. The respondents claimed this made it common property. The Court disagreed, ruling:
“The mere description of land as Gair Mumkin Talai does not extinguish proprietary rights. The revenue records clearly show private ownership, including that of respondent No.6. Restrictions on sale or use do not erase ownership.”
It further emphasized that land use restrictions, even if valid, must be enforced under the appropriate statute—not by bypassing jurisdiction and natural justice.

"Action Cannot Be Taken Against a Third Party Without Ownership or Possession": Seizure and FIR Order Against Petitioner Termed Arbitrary

The petitioner, Shafiq Anjum, had not claimed ownership of the land but merely stored building material on it with the consent of the recorded owner. The Court underscored this fact, stating:
“Even assuming the land use is restricted, action could only lie against the owner—respondent No.6—not against the petitioner who stored material with the owner's permission. The impugned action was not only legally unsustainable but also directed at the wrong party.”

"Statutory Power Cannot Be Assumed Where None Exists": Authorities Reprimanded for Bypassing Due Process

The impugned order had been passed without notice or hearing, and based on a statute that didn’t apply. The High Court minced no words in its criticism:
“The action taken was dehors statutory authority, passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, and relies on a law that explicitly does not apply to municipal areas. Such administrative overreach is constitutionally impermissible.”

"Water Resources Act and Municipal Act Can't Be Invoked Without Evidence or Record": Court Warns Against Afterthought Defences

Authorities attempted to argue that even if the 1956 Act didn’t apply, the land might vest in the Municipal Council or under the J&K Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010. The Court found this claim hollow, observing:
“No entry in the revenue record shows ownership in favour of the Municipal Council or the State. No proceedings were initiated under the Water Resources Act. A plea raised in court cannot retroactively justify an illegal action.”
However, the Court clarified that nothing prevents the authorities from proceeding under the correct statute if applicable, provided proper legal procedure is followed.

"When Power is Exercised Without Law, the Court Must Intervene": Writ Allowed, Seizure Order Quashed

Concluding that the seizure of building material and the direction to lodge an FIR were illegal, the Court allowed the writ petition and struck down the impugned order dated 04.03.2017.
Justice Kazmi concluded:
“This Court cannot allow actions to stand which are taken under the guise of law but are in fact unsupported by it. The impugned order is quashed. The petitioner cannot be subjected to penal consequences under a statute that has no application.”

Date of Judgment: 23 December 2025