Tenants barred from challenging shrine’s ownership: HC

Excelsior Correspondent

JAMMU, Sept 1: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed two writ petitions concerning land at Dodasan Bala, Thanamandi in Rajouri district, holding that tenants are legally barred from disputing the title of their landlord.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while deciding OWP No. 930/2018 along with OWP No. 1807/2014, held that the petitioners were tenants under Khankah Sharief Peer Baba Jeevan Shah and, therefore, could not challenge the ownership of the Shrine over the land in question.

The dispute arose from an eviction order dated September 12, 2014, passed by the Administrator, Auqaf Shahdara Sharief, whereby the petitioners were declared unauthorised occupants and ordered to be evicted from land falling under various khasra numbers in Village Dodasan Bala. They had also sought quashing of Mutation No. 311, under which ownership rights had been recorded in favour of Khankah Sharief Peer Baba Jeevan Shah.

The petitioners claimed that their predecessors had been cultivating the land as tenants of the original owners and contended that the mutation in favour of the Khankah was illegal. They further argued that the original owners professed Hindu faith and could not have created a Waqf in favour of the Shrine.

The respondents, however, relied upon revenue records, rent receipts and statements recorded during earlier proceedings to establish that the petitioners and their predecessors were tenants of the Khankah.

The High Court found that the documentary evidence placed on record clearly showed that petitioners had acknowledged themselves to be tenants of Khankah Sharief Peer Baba Jeevan Shah. The Court also noted that rent receipts established payment of rent to the Auqaf by their predecessors.

Justice Oswal observed that the status of the petitioners was nothing more than that of the tenant of the shrine and held that this fact had been concealed while filing the writ petition.

The Court said that a litigant approaching the High Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts. Suppression of facts having a bearing on the dispute can itself be sufficient to deny relief.

The High Court further relied on the settled doctrine of tenant's estoppel, under which a tenant cannot deny or dispute the title of the landlord under whom he entered or continued in possession. Justice Oswal held that the petitioners, being tenants of the shrine, were legally estopped from questioning its ownership. The Court observed that any challenge to the validity of the mutation or transfer could, at best, have been raised by the original owners and not by the tenants.

"The petitioners, being mere tenants, have no locus standi to raise such objections or challenge the title of their landlord," the court held while dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.