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

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1105

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
MOHAMMAD SADIQ MATT – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) – Respondent
WP(C) 585 / 2021



Serial No. 6 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 585/2021 CM 1757/2021) CM (4557/2025)

Mohammad Sadiq Matt, Aged 60 Years S/O Mohammad Ashnoor Matt R/O Qamarabad, Qamarwari, Srinagar ……...Petitioner(s)

Through:

Mr. Abid Hameed, Adv. vice Mr. Mir Mehraj ud Din Bhat, Adv.

Versus

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary Revenue Department Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu 2. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Kashmir, Srinagar

3. Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, Srinagar.

4. District Collector Srinagar/Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar.

5. Tehsildar Srinagar Central, Srinagar

6. Commissioner SMC Srinagar

7. Chairman Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) Srinagar

8. Chief Enforcement Officer (SMC) Srinagar

9. Ward Officer concerned SMC Srinagar

10. Vice Chairman Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) Srinagar

11. The Director, Survey and Land Records Srinagar Development Authority.

.……Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG for Rs. 1 to 6, 8 and 9 Mr. Illyas Laway, GA for Rs. 7, 10 and 11.

CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE

ORDER

11.11.2025

1. The petitioner through the medium of the instant petition has sought the following relief:

a. A Writ of Prohibition, restraining the respondent No. 5 to

11 from interfering in any manner whatsoever in nature into the proprietary land measuring 2 Kanals, 17.5 Marlas covered under Khasra No. 204, situated at Barthana District Srinagar of the petitioner.

b. A Writ of Mandamus, respondents be commanded to demarcate the land covered by Khasra No’s given hereinabove relief situated at Estate Barthana, District Srinagar and assign the same to the petitioner as lawful owner to the extent of their possession as mentioned in the revenue record.

c. A Writ of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to pay compensation for the damages caused to the proprietary land measuring 02 Kanals and 17.5 Marlas of the petitioner comprising under Survey No. 204 situated at Barthana, District Srinagar, instant forthwith.

2. The petitioner, a resident of Qamarabad, Qamarwari Srinagar, Kashmir, claims to be the owner in peaceful possession of the land measuring 02 Kanals, 17.5 Marlas, comprised under Khasra No. 204, situated at Barthana, District Srinagar. The said land, according to the petitioner, stands duly mutated in his favour and has been in his possession for several decades.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents have

unlawfully dumped huge building material on spot and have started to raise illegal construction over the land of the petitioner, which construction was being carried out without any legal permission and justifiable cause.

4. The petitioner further submits that the land in question is proprietary land recorded in the name of the petitioner and is still in the peaceful possession of the petitioner, but the respondents 6 to 11 are hell-bent to snatch the land of petitioner by raising construction which is meant for agriculture purpose from where the petitioner was earning his livelihood.

5. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid illegal actions on part of the private respondents, the petitioner approached the Tehsildar, Srinagar by way of detailed representation, whereby respondent No. 5 had directed the Director, Land Management, Srinagar Development Authority-respondent No. 11 to address the grievance of the petitioner and sought the relevant record for demarcation of the petitioner’s land, vide communication dated 25.11.2021. However, the respondent No. 11 slept over the matter and started to encroach the land of the petitioner by dumping the construction material thereon. Consequently, the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory duties, and the representation filed by the petitioner has not been accorded due consideration.

6. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondents 6 to 11

have neither compensated the petitioner for the damage caused to his land nor have they ceased the unauthorized use t

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top