The court's decision was based on the principle that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the location of the petitioners' land or its involvement in the land transferred for the ski lift, and the petitioners were given the liberty to file a fresh application for demarcation.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners herein claim to be legal heirs of Mst. Saira Sidiqua who was owner of land measuring 3 kanals and 19 marlas comprising of khasra No. 347 Min and 1678/ 349 min situated at Laripora Phalgam. In the year 1986 Mst. Saira Sidiqua, vide government order No. 241-FST of 1986 dated 17.10. 1986, was permitted to exchange her propriety land aforesaid with forest land measuring 3 kanals and 19 marlas falling in compartment No. 36-A Lidder Phalgam. The propriety land of Mst. Saira Sidiqua was utilized by the Government for public purpose namely expansion of Golf Course Pahalgam. With a view to get the land allotted in exchange mutated in her favour, Mst. Saira Sidiqua made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, for attestation of requisite mutation. Accordingly Tehsildar Pahalgam attested mutation No. 452 in respect of the land given to Mst. Saira Sidiqua in exchange of her propriety land and assigned it a new khasra No. 780. Similarly the proprietary land which was given by Mst. Saira Sidiqua to the government for expansion of Pahalgam, Golf Course was also mutated in favour of the Government vide Mutation No. 1140 dated 5th November 1986. It is submitted that Mst Saira Sidiqua, the mother of the petitioners fenced her land with wooden poles and barbed wires as demarcated by the revenue authorities. In the year 2007, it is alleged, Mst. Saira Sidiqua was informed that some unknown persons having taken the advantage of turmoil in the valley, had removed fencing and polls of the aforesaid land. Accordingly, Tehsildar Pahalgam, was approached for re-demarcation of the said land along with officers of the Forest Department so that the mother of the petitioners was in position to re-fence the land vested in her in terms of Government Order dated 17.10.1986 and duly mutated in the her favour by the Tehsildar Pahalgam. While the application aforesaid was pending consideration, the mother of the petitioners Mst Saira Sidiqua passed away on 25th September 2009. The petitioners claim that they being students and engaged in their respective pursuits, could not pursue the proceedings for demarcation pending before the Tehsildar Pahalgam. It was only in the year 2012 the petitioners who had succeeded to the estate of their mother, came to know that the name of their late mother was missing from the revenue records as having been removed during settlement proceeding undertaken by the revenue authorities in the Pahalgam area. This made the petitioners to move an application before the Settlement Officer on 08.12.2012. The application was allowed and the entry in the name of mother of the petitioners, as it existed prior to settlement proceedings, was restored. Even the land measuring 3 kanals and 19 marlas comprising of Khasra No. 780 ( the subject land) was formally mutated in the name of the petitioners in the year 2017 vide Mutation of inheritance bearing No. 276 attested on 23.12.2017. The petitioners also claim that after getting the revenue records corrected and mutation of inheritance attested in their favour, they approached CEO Pahalgam Development Authority (PDA) for seeking permission of the Building Operation and Control Authority, (BOCA) Phalgam for re-fencing the subject land. The petitioners could not get the permission from the BOCA, Pahalgam, though the matter has been pending before the concerned Authority since the year 2019.

2. The grievance of the petitioners, as projected in this petition, is that the subject land which remained unattended for some time, has now been utilized by the Government for construction of Pahalgam SKI LIFT through the Jammu and Kashmir State Cable Car Corporation (Respondent no.8) and that no compensation for the aforesaid land has been paid. The petitioners claim to have approached the respondents for formally acquiring the land and for payment of compensation but no heed is being paid by the respondents to the genuine request of the petitioners.

3. In the aforesaid backd