The main legal point established is the requirement for registration of decrees creating new rights in immovable property and the prohibition on alienation of migrant property without following legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners initially filed a suit against one Mohammad Anwar Gundroo wherein they sought the following reliefs:

a. A decree of declaration, declaring the plaintiff as owners of a piece of land measuring 84 (Eighty Four) kanals 08 (Eight) marlas falling under Khasra/Survey No.898,903 1275/1055, 1275/1056, 1300/909, 1066, 1108/1107, 1205 Khewat No. 150, 151, 154, 155, 226 Khata No. 571, 686, 687, 691, 915 situated at Mouza/Estate Chatterhama, Tehsil Srinagar (North) District Srinagar, with further direction upon the Tehsildar & Patwari concerned to enter the Mutation/s in favour of the plaintiffs, as per ANNEXURE-A.

b. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, and any other person/s acting through or under him, perpetually from causing any interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs.

c. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, and any other person/s acting through or under him, perpetually from demolishing the erected tin sheeted boundary wall, whether in part or in whole, or otherwise causing any damage or injury to the property.

2. It was pleaded by the petitioners in the suit that they had jointly purchased a piece of land measuring 84 kanals 08 marlas comprising Survey Nos. 898,903,1275/1055, 1275/1056, 1300/909, 1066, 1108/1107, 1205 Khewat No. 150, 151, 154, 155, 226 Khata No. 571, 686, 687, 691, 915 situated at Mouza/Estate Chatterhama, Tehsil Srinagar (North) District Srinagar, from Ashutosh Shanker Koul and Vibhu Shanker Koul through their Attorney Holder, namely, Mohammad Anwar Gundroo, who had entered into an agreement to sell with them and had also acknowledged the receipt of payments from them. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended and Ashutosh Shanker Koul and Vibhu Shanker Koul, through their attorney Mohammad Anwar Gundroo were arrayed as defendants. In the written statement filed by attorney holder on behalf of the defendants, the execution of agreement to sell and receipt of payment/consideration was admitted by him though the prayer was made for dismissal of the suit but surprisingly it was pleaded by the attorney holder that he being the attorney holder is well within his rights to approach any authority for taking necessary steps to execute formal sale deed or any other deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners entered into a compromise with the attorney holder and the matter was referred to the National Lok Adalat where the suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise vide award dated 12.12.2020. After the aforesaid suit was disposed of in terms of the compromise by the National Lok Adalat, the petitioners approached the respondent No.3 for implementation of the award dated 12.12.2020 and for making necessary revenue entries in the revenue record and attestation of mutation in respect of the land mentioned above. The respondent No.3 directed the respondent N.6 to do the needful under rules. When the respondent No.6 did not attest any mutation or make necessary entries with regard to the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioners reflecting them as owners thereof on the basis of the award passed by the National Lok Adalat dated 12.12.2020, the petitioners filed a writ petition bearing WP(C) No.2978/2022 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.12.2022 by directing the respondent No.6 to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of order. When despite receipt of the order mentioned above nothing was done, the petitioners filed a contempt petition which was registered as CCP(W) No.146/2023 and vide order dated 26.04.2023, notice was issued to the respondents therein for filing of statement of facts/compliance report strictly in consonance with the Writ Court judgment. The respondent No.5 addressed a communication dated 15.05.2023 to the