Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the setting aside of a National Lok Adalat award that had declared a woman owner of 147 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land in Ganderbal district.
The court held that ownership of immovable property cannot be transferred merely on the basis of an agreement to sell through a compromise award without a registered sale deed and payment of stamp duty.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani substantially upheld a September 2025 judgment of a Single Judge which had declared the December 6, 2014 Lok Adalat award null and void and restored the underlying civil suit to the trial court.
The bench observed that compromise decrees and Lok Adalat awards cannot be used as substitutes for registered conveyance deeds to evade the requirements of the Transfer of Property Act, Registration Act and Stamp Act.
The court held that any award intended to avoid payment of stamp duty and registration charges would be opposed to public policy and unenforceable in law.
The case relates to agricultural land measuring 147 Kanals and 4 Marlas situated at Rakhi Rabitar in Ganderbal district.
The original civil suit had been filed by Sabeena, a resident of Sanat Nagar, Srinagar, who claimed ownership on the basis of an agreement to sell dated July 15, 2010 allegedly executed by Sansar Singh through his attorney holder Safia Akhtar.
According to court records, instead of filing a suit for specific performance against the proposed vendor, Sabeena sought a declaration of ownership and mandatory injunction against revenue authorities and Safia Akhtar.
The matter was subsequently taken to the National Lok Adalat, where the claim was admitted and a compromise award was passed declaring her owner in possession of the entire land.
The award was challenged before the High Court by Zahoor Ahmad Kambay, Ali Mohammad Rather, Ghulam Ahmad Bhat, Haji Mohammad Sidiq Bhat and Mohammad Maqbool Ganie, residents of Wakura, Ganderbal, who alleged that the proceedings were collusive and designed to secure title over a large tract of land without complying with statutory requirements governing transfer of property.
The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge’s finding that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership rights and cannot by itself transfer title in immovable property.
The court also noted that the alleged vendor, Sansar Singh, had not even been made a party to the suit and questioned whether he was alive at the time the proceedings were instituted.
While affirming the quashing of the Lok Adalat award, the bench modified the Single Judge’s order to the extent that the contesting respondents would not automatically become parties to the restored civil suit.
However, it granted them liberty to seek impleadment before the trial court, which shall decide the matter on its merits after hearing all concerned parties.
