*Vacates status quo; directs fresh proceedings
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Feb 13: Delivering a significant ruling on the binding nature of consent orders and the scope of judicial interference in revenue matters, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a Revisional Authority’s direction to proceed with land partition proceedings strictly in accordance with applicable rules after granting an opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders, while vacating the interim status quo that had stalled the process for years.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, came in a petition filed by Sikander Sharma challenging the order dated January 6, 2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jammu, acting as Revisional Authority. The petitioner had questioned the legality of the remand order which directed the subordinate authority to continue with the partition proceedings after affording due hearing to the parties concerned.
Stating that Revisional Authority’s order had been passed with the consent of counsel for all parties, the High Court observed that advocates act as authorized agents and once consent is recorded and reflected in the proceedings, parties are ordinarily estopped from subsequently challenging the order unless there is clear evidence of fraud, coercion or patent jurisdictional error.
The High Court emphasized that consent decrees and consent-based orders are intended to bring finality to disputes and avoid prolonged litigation. It held that the petitioner could not resile from a position earlier accepted through counsel merely because the outcome later appeared unfavorable.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the Revisional Authority’s order was contrary to law, the High Court noted that the impugned direction did not decide rights conclusively but merely required the lower authority to examine the issue afresh under the relevant Partition Rules after granting opportunity of hearing to all interested persons.
The High Court observed that such a procedural remand caused no prejudice to the petitioner and instead ensured a fair adjudication process. It stressed that before passing any final order, the competent authority must verify whether partition is legally permissible and must hear all stakeholders.
The High Court also took note of the interim status quo granted earlier, which effectively prevented the lower authority from acting on the Revisional Authority’s directions. Terming the continuation of interim restraint as not conducive to justice, the High Court vacated the order dated February 1, 2021 and allowed the revenue authorities to resume proceedings.
The High Court also relied on earlier precedents and Supreme Court rulings to underline that compromise or consent-based decisions create an estoppel and are meant to prevent endless litigation cycles.
Concluding that no illegality or jurisdictional error existed in the Revisional Authority’s order, the High Court upheld the January 6, 2021 decision and remitted the matter to the concerned authority. It directed that partition proceedings be conducted strictly as per applicable rules after granting opportunity of hearing to all interested parties and that a reasoned order be passed thereafter.
Advocate R K S Thakur appeared for the petitioner while as Advocate Priyanka Bhat vice Senior AAG Monika Kohli and Advocate Ajay Abrol appeared for the respondents.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
