IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on: 26.11.2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 Uploaded on: 05.12.2025 Whether the operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Full CM(M) No.124/2024 GHULAM MOHAMMAD RESHI @GULLA AND ANOTHER ...PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT(S) Through: - Mr. Syed Wasiq, Advocate.

Vs.

SMT. KAMLA JI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Showkat Ali Khan, Advocate.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have challenged order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Anantnag (for short “the trial court”), whereby application of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Anantnag (for short “the Appellate Court”), whereby the aforesaid order of the trial court has been upheld and the appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

2) It appears that the petitioners have filed a suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction against the predecessor in interest of the respondents who has died during the pendency of the present petition, before the learned trial court. The case of the plaintiffs before the learned trial court is that plaintiff No.2 and father of plaintiff No.1 have been recorded as tenants of land measuring 05 kanals and 04 marlas falling under Khasra No.72 situated at Village Brah Tehsil Shangus District Anantnag. It has been submitted that Khasra number 72 has now been bifurcated into a series of new Khasra numbers and the suit land has been assigned two new Khasra numbers i.e. is Khasra No.1673/72 and 1676/72. It has been pleaded that father of the original defendant was ex-owner of the suit land and after the application of the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reformers Act (for short "the Act"), he ceased to have any right claim or interest in the suit land. It has been contended that the plaintiffs have been in physical cultivating possession of the suit land to the exclusion of defendants and their predecessor-in-interest, for a period of not less than 50 years. It has been pleaded that the original defendant, who was employed with the Office of Divisional Commissioner Kashmir, was misusing his position and was trying to force his entry into the suit land.

3) The original defendant filed his written statement before the learned trial court in which he pleaded that the suit is barred under Section 25 of the Act read with Rule 58 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Rules (for short “the Rules”) It has been pleaded that the plaintiffs have manipulated and tampered with the revenue record and the present suit has been filed with a view to grab the suit land which has been vested upon the defendant by virtue of mutation No. 652 under section 7 of the Act. The defendant has pleaded that his father was owner of land falling under Khasra No.2-min (11 kanals 14 marlas), Khasra No.72-min (old) Khasra No.1673/72 and 1676/72 (new) (05 kanals 04 marlas) situated at Brah. It has been submitted that out of the afforested land, the suit land, i.e., land measuring 5 kanals, 4 marlas, from survey no. 1673/72 and 1676/72 was under the cultivation of father of plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 as tenants. After coming into force of the Act, mutation No.565 under Section 4 of the Act was attested in respect of the aforesaid land in favour of the plaintiffs and they were declared as prospective owners whereas the father of the defendant was declared as ex-owner. It has been submitted that after the death of father of the defendant, land falling under Survey No.72-min(old) Suit Survey No.1673/72 and 1676/72 (new) (02 kanals 12 marlas) has been resumed by the defendant and mutation No.652 dated 12.05.1987 stands attested in his favour. It has been submitted that even after attestation of mutation in favour of the defendant, the possession of the suit