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