List of Current Affairs

Source: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Why in News? 

Justice M.A. Chowdhary of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court decided Mohammad Sultan Bhat v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (2026). The Court upheld a trial court's order striking out three private individuals from a land dispute suit under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, holding that the dispute with the revenue authorities could be effectively decided in their absence. It dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

What was the Background of Mohammad Sultan Bhat v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (2026) Case? 

The petitioner, Mohammad Sultan Bhat, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning land at Dangerpora, Tailbal, Srinagar, impleading revenue authorities as well as private individuals as defendants. 

The dispute arose as follows: 

• An inheritance mutation recorded in 1967 had devolved the estate of the petitioner's father upon him and his brother, excluding their two sisters. 
• One of the sisters challenged the mutation before the Financial Commissioner, who set it aside in 2017 and directed fresh mutation proceedings in accordance with Muslim Personal Law. 

The petitioner submitted that: 

• A compromise was later reached with his sisters, under which one sister received her share in cash and the other was given land. 
• Despite the compromise and pendency of civil proceedings, the revenue authorities continued proceedings concerning the property at the instance of the private respondents. 

Proceedings before the trial court: 

• The private respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that no cause of action was disclosed and no relief was sought against them. 
• The trial court (3rd Civil Subordinate Judge (Forest Magistrate), Srinagar) declined to reject the plaint. 
• However, it later struck out their names under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, holding that they had been improperly joined. 

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the scope of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC: 

• The provision empowers the court to strike out a party improperly joined, or to add a person whose presence is necessary for an effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit. 
• The Court distinguished between:  
  • Necessary party – one without whom no effective order can be passed. 
  • Proper party – one whose presence enables a complete and final decision, even though no specific relief is claimed against him. 
• The only reason to array a person as a party is so that he is bound by the result, and the question involved cannot be effectually and completely settled without him. 

On the pleadings: 

• Neither any cause of action nor any specific relief had been pleaded against the private respondents. 
• As per the plaint itself, the Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar were acting pursuant to directions of the Divisional Commissioner, and the petitioner was essentially challenging the actions of the revenue authorities. 

On the presence of private respondents: 

• The proceedings before the revenue authorities could be effectively adjudicated without the private respondents. 
• Their presence was not necessary, and they could not be compelled to remain in a suit where no cause of action had accrued and no relief had been sought against them. 

On interference under Article 227: 

• The trial court had rightly exercised its power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. 
• The petitioner failed to show any perversity or illegality in the order warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. 

Conclusion: 

• The Court dismissed the petition along with the connected application, upheld the trial court's order, and vacated any subsisting interim directions.

What is Order I Rule 10 of the CPC? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Order I of the CPC deals with parties to suits, i.e., who may be joined as plaintiffs and defendants. 
• Rule 10 empowers the court to correct defects relating to parties, by substituting, adding or striking out parties at any stage of the proceedings. 
• The object is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to ensure that all questions in controversy are finally decided in one proceeding. 

Statutory Provisions: 

• Rule 10(1) – Suit in the name of wrong plaintiff: Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff through a bona fide mistake, the court may substitute or add the proper plaintiff. 
• Rule 10(2) – Court may strike out or add parties: The court may, at any stage, with or without an application, and on such terms as appear just, order:  
  • The name of any party improperly joined to be struck out; and 
  • The name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication, to be added. 
• Rule 10(3): No person shall be added as a plaintiff, or as next friend of a plaintiff under disability, without his consent. 
• Rule 10(4): Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall be amended as necessary and amended copies of the summons and plaint shall be served on the new defendant. 
• Rule 10(5): Proceedings against a newly added defendant are deemed to have begun only on service of summons, subject to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 

Related Provisions: 

• Order I Rule 9: No suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, except non-joinder of a necessary party. 
• Order I Rule 13: Objections as to non-joinder or misjoinder must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, otherwise they are deemed to be waived. 
• Order VII Rule 11: Provides for rejection of the plaint, including where it does not disclose a cause of action. Rejection operates against the plaint as a whole, which is why the trial court here used Order I Rule 10(2) to remove only the improperly joined defendants. 

Necessary Party vs. Proper Party: 

What is the Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• Article 227 confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• It is meant to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority, and is not an appellate or revisional jurisdiction. 

Scope: 

• The High Court interferes only where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, exceeded its jurisdiction, or committed a patent error resulting in grave injustice. 
• Mere errors of fact or law, or a different possible view, do not justify interference. 

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla of the Allahabad High Court decided Christian Community Welfare Society v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2026). The Court held that freedom of religion, even though it may include the right to perform last rites, cannot be stretched to claim a specific plot of local body land for a cemetery. It dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of the society's request to convert barren land in Ghaziabad into a Christian cemetery. 

What was the Background of Christian Community Welfare Society v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, approached the High Court through its president, Vinay Kumar Paul. One of its objects is to assist in the performance of last rites of Christians. 
• The dispute related to 0.3420 hectare of land in Village Visokhar, Pargana Jalalabad, Tehsil Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, recorded in revenue records as barren land (usar). 

The society submitted that: 

• Christian residents of the area faced serious difficulty in conducting funerals, as the existing Christian cemetery at Begamabad Budana was running out of space. 
• The Board of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Modi Nagar, had passed Resolution No. 11 on 22nd January 2018, proposing allotment of the land for a Christian cemetery. 
• The resolution was sent to the district authorities, but the land was never converted or reserved for that purpose. 
• It made several representations, obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and had earlier filed a PIL before the High Court seeking permission to use the land as a graveyard. 

Pursuant to the High Court's directions in the PIL, the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Ghaziabad, rejected the request in January 2026 under Section 77(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006. 

The society challenged this order, contending that non-allotment of suitable land violated its members' fundamental right to freedom of religion, of which performance of last rites is a part. 

The district authorities submitted that: 

• The land was recorded as barren, was lying vacant, and had never been traditionally used by any community as a graveyard. 
• The Sub-Divisional Magistrate's report noted applications from other local residents and communities apprehending that allotment to the Christian community could lead to communal differences in future. 
• A Christian cemetery already existed nearby and was in use. 
• Hence, there was no justification at that stage for allotting the land for a Christian cemetery. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On conversion of land into public utility land: 

• Under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, land entrusted to a Gaon Sabha or local body can be converted into public utility land. 
• However, such conversion is essentially an executive decision, taken after weighing various factors and contingencies. 

On whether a justiciable right exists: 

• No person has a justiciable right to seek conversion of a particular non-public utility land, vested in a Gaon Sabha or local body, into public utility land for a graveyard. 
• The position would be different where there is a genuine shortage of space; such a request may be considered by the authorities, keeping in mind the larger and diverse public interest of all residents of the area. 

On freedom of religion and last rites: 

• The right to perform last rites according to the tenets of one's religion may form part of the right to freedom of religion. 
• But this right cannot be exercised in a manner that entitles the petitioner or the Christian community to insist on the reservation of a particular plot of local body land for a cemetery. 

Conclusion: 

• Finding no justiciable basis to interfere with the order rejecting the request for the particular plot, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

What is the Right to Freedom of Religion? 

Meaning and Nature: 

• India is a secular State; it has no official religion and treats all religions equally. 
• Articles 25 to 28 in Part III of the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion to individuals and religious groups. 
• This freedom is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III. 

Constitutional Provisions: 

• Article 25 – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion:  
  • All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. 
  • It is subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights. 
  • The State may regulate economic, financial, political or other secular activities associated with religious practice, and may provide for social welfare and reform. 
• Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs: Every religious denomination has the right to:  
  • Establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. 
  • Manage its own affairs in matters of religion. 
  • Own and acquire movable and immovable property. 
  • Administer such property in accordance with law. 
• Article 27: No person can be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. 
• Article 28: No religious instruction shall be provided in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds. 

Freedom of Religion and Property: 

• Article 26 recognises the right of a denomination to own and acquire property, but such property must be acquired and administered "in accordance with law". 
• It does not create a right to demand that the State or a local body allot a particular piece of public land for religious use, as reiterated in the present case. 

Right to Last Rites and Dignity of the Dead: 

• In Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court held that the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 extends not only to a living person but also to his body after death. 
• In Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court recognised that a homeless deceased person is entitled to a decent burial or cremation according to his religious faith.

What is the Legal Position on Public Utility Land in Uttar Pradesh? 

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006: 

• Land vested in a Gaon Sabha or local body is held for the benefit of the community at large. 
• Section 77 of the Code deals with land in which bhumidhari rights do not accrue, which includes public utility land such as burial and cremation grounds, pastures, and ponds. 
• The present request was rejected under Section 77(2) of the Code. 

Nature of the Decision: 

• Whether a particular plot should be converted into a graveyard is a policy and executive matter, depending on factors like availability of land, existing facilities, and the interests of all communities residing in the area. 
• Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, ordinarily do not direct authorities to allot a specific plot, as no enforceable legal right exists in this regard.