Civil courts may protect an allottee’s possession of evacuee property against private interference.

The respondent brought a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, claiming possession of 16 marlas of land in Khasra No. 415, described in the revenue record as evacuee land allotted to his uncle.

The petitioners contended that the suit was barred by Section 31 of the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949, and sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

The trial court dismissed that application on 26 September 2023, and later made its interim status quo order absolute on 7 July 2025. The appellate court dismissed the petitioners’ appeal against the interim order on 24 December 2025. The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether Sections 15 and 31 of the J&K Evacuees (Administration of Property) Act, 1949 bar a civil suit for injunction between private parties concerning evacuee land

Whether the courts below erred in granting and affirming interim protection of the respondent’s claimed possession, warranting interference under Article 227

Section 31 of the Act of 1949 excludes civil-court jurisdiction over questions reserved to the Custodian or Custodian General, including whether property is evacuee property, an evacuee’s interest in it, and the legality of action taken under the Act.

Section 15 exempts property vested in the Custodian from attachment, sale and injunction, but does not itself exclude civil-court jurisdiction in a suit between private parties seeking protection against interference by another private person.

In Tariq Hameed Kara v. Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Wani, 2005 SLJ 358, the Court held that Sections 15 and 31 do not bar civil-court jurisdiction over matters outside the Custodian’s statutory competence, including a private-party injunction dispute.

Revenue entries carry a presumption of correctness, and Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not permit the High Court to substitute its view where the courts below have adopted a possible view.

The suit sought to restrain private defendants from interfering with the respondent’s claimed possession; it did not require the civil court to decide whether the land was evacuee property, determine rights reserved to the Custodian, or review any action taken under the Act. Sections 15 and 31 therefore did not bar the suit, and the trial court correctly refused to reject the plaint.

As to interim relief, the revenue record showed the land in the possession of the respondent’s father, supporting a prima facie basis to protect possession pending trial. The High Court held that the courts below had adopted a possible view and that their exercise of discretion did not warrant supervisory interference.

It also found no ground under Article 227 to interfere with the interim injunction, which had been affirmed by the appellate court. The petition was dismissed.