Section 15 & 31 J&K Evacuee Property Act 1949 Do Not Bar Civil Court's Jurisdiction In Injunction Suits Between Private Parties: J&K High Court

"The scheme of the Act however, shows that while the authorities under the Act have got powers to deal with and determine certain issues including the questions regarding the nature of property, the authorities have got no powers to grant or refuse injunction to preserve or protect the property, against a private party." High Court of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh, in a significant ruling dated October 5, 2026, held that Sections 15 and 31 of the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, do not oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court in suits for permanent prohibitory injunction filed between private individuals, even if the subject matter involves evacuee land.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the bar on jurisdiction is limited to matters specifically falling within the competence of the Custodian or Custodian General and does not extend to the protection of possessory rights against private trespassers.

The dispute arose from a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent, who sought to restrain the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession of land measuring 16 marlas falling under Khasra No. 415. The respondent claimed possession as the successor to the original allottee of the land, which was categorized as evacuee property. The petitioners contended that the suit was not maintainable, arguing that under Section 31 of the 1949 Act, Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters involving evacuee property, and under Section 15, no injunction can be granted in respect of such property. The Trial Court dismissed the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a decision subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court.

The primary question before the court was whether the bar under Sections 15 and 31 of the 1949 Act excludes the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit for injunction filed by an allottee of evacuee property against a private person. The court was also tasked with determining whether the Trial Court and Appellate Court exercised their discretion correctly in granting an interim injunction to protect the respondent's possession based on revenue records.

Scope of Section 31 of the 1949 Act

The Court observed that Section 31 prohibits Civil Courts from adjudicating upon whether a property is "evacuee property" or questioning the legality of actions taken by the Custodian. However, these limitations do not apply when the litigation is strictly between private parties concerning possession. The Bench noted, "The issue involved in the suit does not involve determination of the question whether the property is or is not an evacuee property or whether the parties have any interest in the evacuee property nor does it involve the determination of the question with regard to the legality of any action taken by the Custodian General or the Custodian."

Clarifying Section 15 Exemptions

Addressing the bar under Section 15, the Court clarified that while the provision exempts evacuee property from attachment, distress, sale, or injunctions against the Evacuee Department, it does not bar the Civil Court from protecting the interests of an allottee against third-party encroachment. The Court held, "Exemption of the property does not amount to exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil Court. The suit before the trial Court is a civil suit between private individuals where neither the order passed by the authorities under the Act nor any issue relating to the exercise of jurisdiction by these authorities is involved."

Presumption of Correctness of Revenue Entries

The Court further noted that the respondent had produced revenue records (Khasra Girdhawari) showing his possession. Emphasizing the evidentiary weight of such documents, the Bench stated, "There is a presumption of correctness attached to the revenue entries. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession of the suit land, hence his possession over the said land has to be protected till the disposal of the suit."

Refusal to Interfere under Article 227

The Court concluded that the Trial Court had properly exercised its discretion in granting an interim injunction and that the Appellate Court correctly upheld it. Invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court held that it could not sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of the lower courts if the view taken was a plausible one based on the material on record. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that civil remedies for private disputes remain intact despite the property's classification as evacuee land.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026