Claims based on an unconstitutional statute are void ab initio, extinguishing ownership rights.

(JUDGMENT)

Shahzad Azeem-J

1. These intra Court Appeals have been directed against the common judgment dated, July 24, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge (“the writ Court”) in OWP No. 809/2013 titled Ghulam Rasool Mistri Vs. State of J&K and ors; OWP No. 1784/2012 titled Ghulam Rasool Mistri Vs. State of J&K and ors; and OWP No. 1166/2016 titled Srinagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Gulla Sheikh and ors., respectively. The writ Court, vide impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petitions being; OWP Nos. 809/2013 & 1784/2012, whereas, OWP No. 1166/2016 was allowed, thereby set aside the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Financial Commissioner in File No. 3/FC-AP, titled Gul Sheikh and others vs. Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Srinagar and another.

2. At the outset, it is sine qua non to note that by virtue of the judgment under challenge four writ petitions came to be adjudicated by way of common judgment dated, July 24, 2018, however, the appeal bearing LPAOW No. 92/2018, wherein one of the four writ petitions bearing OWP No. 1536/2012 titled Abdul Hamid Dandroo and others v. State of J&K and others was the subject matter of challenge, and same vide order dated November 20, 2024, by a Co-ordinate Bench was dismissed.

3. On wading through the paper-book, necessity is felt for compartmentalization of these LPAs as same will shed light as to how litigation has embroiled to the multiplicity and re-litigation, in an attempt to infuse the life into a dead horse, which of course is impossible.

4. Now, coming to the LPAOW No. 68/2018 arising out of OWP No. 809/2013, titled Ghulam Rasool Mistri Vs. State of J&K and ors. and LPAOW No. 116/2018 arising out of OWP No. 1784/2012, titled Ghulam Rasool Mistri Vs. State of J&K and ors, respectively, these LPAs are filed by same appellant, namely; Ghulam Rasool Mistri and both appeals in essence, rest on similar issues of facts and law, rather, it would be proper to say that soul of both the appeals lies in one skeleton. Appellant herein is also one of the appellants in third appeal bearing LPAOW No.118/2018, titled Abdul Hamid Dandra and ors. Vs. Srinagar Municipal Corporation and others and besides this he was also party in LPAOW No. 92/2018 titled Abdul Hamid Dandroo and ors. Vs. State of J&K and others arising from OWP No. 1536/2012, that stood already dismissed vide judgment dated November 20, 2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench.

5. The appellants in LPAOW No. 92/2018, arisen out of OWP No. 1536/2012, (already dismissed) and LPAOW No. 118/2018 (arising from OWP No.1166/2016) are the same.

6. Across the board appellants have continuously asserted their claim to the entitlement of the vesting of ownership rights over the land in question before different forums as they being in possession of the respective patches of the State lands by virtue of relinquishment deeds and thus are entitled to the conferment of the ownership rights under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 (“Roshni Act”), but according to them the Corporation alleged to have been causing interference to dispossess them from the land in question and in addition also they have been seeking parity with other land owners, namely; Mst. Zainab Begum and Mirza Maqsood Ali, as well as Adnan Manzoor Ahangar, etc.

7. Above is direct and uncomplicated explanation of the core issue, therefore, we do not wish to burden this judgment with all the factual assertions adumbrated in the memo of appeals and arguments advanced at bar, in that even accepting the proffered facts in their