The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court declined to reject a possession-protection suit merely because the land was evacuee property.
Judge / Bench — Justice Sanjay Dhar
Sections 15 and 31 of the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act did not bar this injunction dispute between private parties, which neither questioned the property’s evacuee status nor challenged an act or matter reserved to the Custodian. Revenue entries supported a prima facie case for protecting the plaintiff’s possession, and the concurrent injunction orders were left undisturbed under Article 227. The ruling helps identify the actual scope of the statutory exclusion: counsel should distinguish a private interference claim from questions of evacuee status, custodial action or rights falling within the statutory authority’s competence.
Case — Bodh Raj and others v. Vijay Kumar · CM(M) 25/2026 · 5 October 2026 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioners — Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate, and Ms. Arsha Sharma, Advocate. Respondent — Mr. Ajay Bakshi, Advocate.