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

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 221

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
HAMIDULLAH BHAT AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (HOME) – Respondent
WP(C) 64 / 2026



##PAGE1##

Serial No. 79

Supp. Cause List

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

WP(C) 64/2026 CM(126/2026)

HAMIDULLAH BHAT AND ANR. …Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Mir Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate

Vs.

UT OF JK & ORS ...Respondent(s).

Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice

Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG for R-1 to R-3

Ms. Yasmeena Jan, Adv. vice

Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI for R-4 to R-6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE

ORDER

28.01.2026

1. Ms. Maha Majeed, learned Assisting Counsel, appears vice Mr. Mohsin

Qadri, learned Sr. AAG, and accepts notice in the matter for the

respondents 1 to 3, and Ms. Yasmeena Jan, learned counsel appears vice

Mr. T.M. Shamsi, learned DSGI, and accepts notice in the matter for the

respondents 4 to 6.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of the matter.

3. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they are the recorded

owners of land measuring 6 kanals and 8 marlas under Survey No. 835

min, situated at Karewa, Chawalgam, Kulgam, along with the residential

house constructed thereon. That the residential structure on the aforesaid

land came to be damaged in a bomb blast in the year 1992. That due to

the then prevailing turmoil in the Valley, they migrated from Kashmir in

1995, and their aforesaid property came to be occupied by the security

forces, which are in the continuous occupation of the same since then.

That since 1995 onwards, they repeatedly approached the concerned

Arif Hameed

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this documeantuthorities for assessment and payment of rent on account of the

30.01.2026

##PAGE2##

occupation of their aforesaid land and building. That in September, 2022,

the Defence Estates Officer, Kashmir Circle, sought a factual report from

the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam. That the verification which was

conducted by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam, confirmed

them as being the recorded owners of the said property as well as the

occupation of the same by the RR Camp, Karewa, Chawalgam, Kulgam.

It, inter-alia, came in the report that the revenue officials were not

permitted access to the premises for proper demarcation of the same.

That subsequent reports submitted by the Tehsildar, Kulgam in May,

2023, again confirmed their ownership regarding the landed property in

the occupation of the security forces. That all the said reports came to be

forwarded to the Defence Estates Officer in September, 2024. That in the

process, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam in June, 2025

directed the Superintending Engineer, PWD (R&B), Kulgam, to assess

the rent of the occupied premises, including the land, building and trees.

That assessment teams were constituted on more than one occasion but

access to the premises for demarcation, measurement and assessment was

denied by the concerned Commanding Officer of the Army, thereby

halting the whole assessment process. That they have been denied their

valuable constitutional right to property by the inaction on the part of the

respondents 4 to 6. That they have been finally forced to approach this

Court for vindication of their legal rights.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter can be

disposed of at this threshold stage by directing the respondents to

expedite the assessment of the rent in respect of the landed property

consisting of land measuring 6 kanals and 8 marlas falling under Survey

no. 835 min, situated at Karewa, Chawalgam, Kulgam alongwith trees

Arif Hameed

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

30.01.2026 and residential house standing/constructed thereon, in accordance with

##PAGE3##

the law, after proper demarcation, measurement and assessment of the

occupied premises.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the occupation of their aforesaid

property by the security forces is not at all denied, as the said fact has

already been confirmed by the office of the Deputy Commissioner,

Kulgam.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions,

pl

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