Trial Court Acted Within Jurisdiction in Appointing Revenue and Agriculture Commissioners, Holds J&K High Court

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh upheld a Kupwara trial court’s order appointing two commissioners to inspect disputed land, finding the step procedural and consistent with appellate court directions.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, sitting singly at the Srinagar bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, on 21 May 2026 dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India that sought to quash a Kupwara trial court’s order appointing the Tehsildar and the District Agriculture Officer as commissioners to inspect suit land. The petitioners had argued that the appointment was mechanical, without recorded reasons, and beyond the scope of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found no patent illegality or jurisdictional error, held that the appointment was a procedural step in furtherance of directions already issued by the appellate court, and remanded the matter to the trial court to proceed expeditiously on the basis of the commissioners’ reports.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The underlying civil suit was filed by Ghulam Ahmad Malik before the Court of Munsiff, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kupwara, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against Bashir Ahmad Akhoon and Wali Mohammad Akhoon. The suit concerned land measuring three kanals and 17 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 1710, 1712 and 1713 situated at Gushi, Kupwara.

Malik’s case was that the land had been gifted to him by the petitioners, that possession was duly delivered, and that mutation No. 422 dated 2 November 1995 was validly attested in his favour. He further pleaded that in 1998 petitioner No. 1 had challenged the mutation before the Agrarian Commissioner, Kupwara, but that appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 15 May 1999 after petitioner No. 1 admitted the mutation was true and legal. According to Malik, the petitioners began interfering with his possession in 2020, including stopping the flow of irrigation water, which prompted the suit.

The trial court passed an ex parte interim injunction on 22 June 2020 restraining the petitioners from interfering with the ownership, possession, enjoyment and revenue record of the suit land. That order was made absolute on 16 April 2025.

The petitioners challenged the absolute injunction by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Principal District Judge, Kupwara. The appellate court, by order dated 3 July 2025, modified the trial court’s order. It set aside the absolute injunction and directed both parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the suit land, while directing the trial court to proceed with the main suit expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.

The appellate court had specifically observed that the trial court could have exercised greater caution by adopting a neutral interim approach, given that both parties claimed possession and ownership under rival assertions. It also noted that the absence of a site inspection or appointment of a local commissioner, despite explicit pleadings regarding denial of possession, had undermined the factual basis for the conclusions drawn at the interim stage.

Events Leading to the Impugned Order

Malik challenged the status quo order of 3 July 2025 before the High Court under Article 227, which was registered as CM(M) No. 289/2025. The High Court did not grant any interim relief and only issued notice.

According to the respondents’ reply affidavit, the petitioners thereafter, during the intervening night of 19/20 September 2025, trespassed upon the suit land and illegally raised a tin shed. Photographs placed on record showed the tin shed present on 20 September 2025 but absent on 6 July 2025. When Malik visited the land on the morning of 20 September 2025, the petitioners allegedly used force against him and his family members, resulting in injuries. FIR No. 302/2025 was registered at Police Station Kupwara. Malik also filed a written complaint dated 20 September 2025 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara, who forwarded it to the Tehsildar. A Patwari conducted a spot inspection and submitted a report confirming that the petitioner had raised construction during the intervening night of 19/20 September 2025, corroborated by the Chowkidar/Lumberdar of the area.

Malik then filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the pending suit before the trial court, seeking restoration of status quo as it existed on 3 July 2025 and directions to the Tehsildar and SHO concerned for enforcement of that order. The trial court, by order dated 29 November 2025, appointed two commissioners, the Tehsildar concerned and the District Agriculture Officer, Kupwara, to visit the spot and submit a report regarding the subject matter of the suit. The petitioners challenged that order in CM(M) No. 548/2025 before the High Court.

The Legal Issue

The petitioners raised two principal objections. First, they argued that before appointing a commissioner, a court is required to record reasons as to why local inspection is necessary and why oral or documentary evidence already on record is inadequate. The absence of such reasoning, they contended, rendered the order casual and mechanical, warranting interference under Article 227.

Second, they argued that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining an application seeking status quo and restoration of possession when the appellate court’s order of 3 July 2025 was itself under challenge before the High Court in CM(M) No. 289/2025. Entertaining such an application, they said, amounted to the trial court sitting in appeal over the appellate court’s order. They further contended that directing an enquiry through Revenue and Agriculture Commissioners for an extensive fact-finding exercise was beyond the scope and ambit of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and reflected total non-application of mind.

The respondents, through Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Senior Advocate, raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, contending that the petition was misconceived, factually incorrect, and an abuse of supervisory jurisdiction. They relied on Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers a civil court to issue a commission for local investigation to elucidate any matter in dispute, and on Rule 10A, which permits a commission for scientific investigation. They argued that the impugned order was purely interlocutory and procedural, did not determine any substantive rights, and did not warrant interference under Article 227.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Nargal began by restating the settled limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227. Relying on Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329, the court recalled that the High Court “cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view.” The court also referred to Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd, (2001) 8 SCC 97, for the proposition that the power under Article 227 cannot be used to convert the High Court into a court of appeal where no statutory right of appeal exists.

Applying those principles, the court found that the trial court’s order appointing commissioners was not an isolated or arbitrary step. The appellate court had itself, while modifying the interim injunction, specifically observed that the absence of site inspection or appointment of a local commissioner had undermined the factual basis of the trial court’s earlier conclusions. The appellate court had simultaneously directed the trial court to proceed with the main suit expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law.

Against that backdrop, Justice Nargal held that the trial court, in appointing the commissioners, had merely acted in furtherance of the observations and directions issued by the appellate court. The appointment was a step intended to assist the court in arriving at a proper conclusion regarding the factual controversy, not an adjudication of title or determination of possession. The court also found that once rival claims regarding possession and allegations of alteration of the nature of the suit property were placed before the trial court, directing local investigation to ascertain the actual position on spot was fully justified.

On the petitioners’ argument that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the Section 151 application while the appellate order was under challenge before the High Court, the court did not accept that the trial court was thereby sitting in appeal over the appellate court. The commissioners’ reports, the court clarified, would only aid the trial court in appreciating the factual controversy and would not by themselves determine the rights or possession of either party. The trial court would be required to consider the reports strictly in accordance with law after affording both parties adequate opportunity to file objections and lead evidence.

The court found no perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order that could justify interference under Article 227.

Disposal of the Connected Petition

Since the High Court had directed the Registry to list CM(M) No. 289/2025, Malik’s petition challenging the appellate court’s status quo order, along with CM(M) No. 548/2025, both petitions were heard and decided together by the common order dated 21 May 2026. With the detailed order passed in CM(M) No. 548/2025 upholding the trial court’s commissioner appointment and remanding the matter for expeditious disposal, Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri stated that he had no objection to CM(M) No. 289/2025 also being disposed of in the same terms. Accordingly, CM(M) No. 289/2025 was disposed of along with all connected applications in terms of the order in CM(M) No. 548/2025.

Order

The High Court upheld the order dated 29 November 2025 passed by the Munsiff, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kupwara, appointing the Tehsildar and the District Agriculture Officer as commissioners. CM(M) No. 548/2025 was disposed of. CM(M) No. 289/2025 was also disposed of in the same terms. Both parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 5 June 2026. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit expeditiously, in the light of the commissioners’ reports and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by the High Court while deciding either petition.