Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1698/2026 of INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE HEEWAN TEHSIL NARWAE Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE) on 22 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. (4464/2026) in WP(C) No. 1698/2026 CM No. (4465/2026) Inhabitants of Village Heewan Tehsil Narwae District Baramulla …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Advocate VERSUS Union Territory of J&K And Ors.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM No. (4464/2026) in WP(C) No. 1698/2026
CM No. (4465/2026)
Inhabitants of Village Heewan Tehsil Narwae District Baramulla
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Advocate
VERSUS
Union Territory of J&K And Ors.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
22.07.2026
1. This Court does not find any reason to grant indulgence in the matter particularly when the writ petition is intended to be maintained in a representative capacity by three petitioners who otherwise had chosen to sue in their own name in a civil suit before the court of Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate) Baramulla way back in the year 2022 in which the defendants named, were Sheikh Farooq, Manzoor Ahmad Sofi and Habibullah Sheikh, by reference to the same religious place as is the subject matter of the present writ petition. Sr. No. 177 Supp. 1
2. With respect to administration and management of affairs of a religious place having an element of charitable trust in it, best legal remedy is recourse under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to which the petitioners are entitled in case if they chose to sue by invoking section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the competent court upon availing the leave as is intended there under.
3. Therefore, this Court finds no cause to grant indulgence in the present matter which otherwise is a 2nd round of litigation before this Court and in a sense is a private dispute of wrestling between the petitioners and the private respondents of administration and management of a religious place.
4. Dismissed as such.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 22.07.2026 Akhil Dev