SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(J&K) 51

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR
Masooda Akhtar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Advocate For Appellant: M.M. Dar
Advocate For Respondent: N.H. Shah
Advocate For Respondent: N.A. Beigh

1. By the medium of this writ petition, petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 11th June, 2005, passed by respondent No.2, hereinafter for short impugned order on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

2. Respondents have filed reply. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the property in question is not migrant property, thus Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, hereinafter for short the "Act" was not applicable. While developing the arguments, argued that the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and power. The respondent No.2 arbitrarily and erroneously held that property in question is migrant property.

3. Learned counsel for respondent argued that property in question is a migrant property and provisions of the Act are applicable.

4. Heard. Admit.

It appears that petitioner had already filed OWP 211/03 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2005. It is profitable to reproduce the said order herein, which read as under:-

"Heard. Admit.

By consent of the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal. Writ petition questions the


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top