Advocates:
['B A BASHIR', '', 'FARAH BASHIR', 'FALAK BASHIR', 'N H SHAH AAG', '', 'FALAK BASHIR', 'MOHAMMAD RAIS UD GANAI G A']

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

AT SRINAGAR

Reserved On: 29^th of April, 2021.

Pronounced On: 18^th of May, 2021.

(i) OWP No. 1294/2017:

Mohammad Ramzan Bhat

… Petitioner(s)

Through:

Mr B. A. Bashir, Senior Advocate with

Ms Falak Bashir, Advocate.

Versus

State of JK & Ors.

… Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG with

Mr Mohammad Rais-ud-Din Ganai, GA.

(ii) CPOWP No.06/2019:

Mohammad Ramzan Bhat

… Petitioner(s)

Through:

Mr B. A. Bashir, Senior Advocate with

Ms Falak Bashir, Advocate.

Versus

Union Territory of JK & Ors.

… Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG with

Mr Mohammad Rais-ud-Din Ganai, GA.

(iii) LPA No.194/2019:

State of JK & Ors.

… Appellant(s)

Page 2 of 45

OWP No.1294/2017; CPOWP No.06/2019; & LPA No. 194/2019

Through:

Mr B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG with

Mr Mohammad Rais-ud-Din Ganai, GA

Versus

Mohammad Ramzan Bhat

… Respondent(s)

Through:

Mr B. A. Bashir, Senior Advocate with

Ms Falak Bashir, Advocate.

CORAM:

Hon’ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge

Hon’ble Mr Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, Judge

(JUDGMENT)

Per Magrey; J:

01.

In OWP No.1294/2017, the Petitioner has sought the indulgence

of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

<a) By issuance of writ of Mandamus, respondents 5 and

7 be directed to immediately receive cost of the land measuring

6 Marlas and 15 sft, which has been regularized in favour of the

petitioner vide letter No. Rev(NDK)/75/40 dated 12-6-1978 on

the basis of the rate for regularization fixed at that time @ Rs.

35904/- per kanal, what proportionately comes to be paid by the

petitioner for 6 Marlas and 15 sft;

b) By issuance of Writ of Mandamus, respondents 5 and 7

be directed to decide between themselves who is entitled to

receive payment and accordingly issue demand notice in favour

of the petitioner as cost of the regularized plot measuring 6

Marlas and 15 sft falling under Survey no. 836;

Page 3 of 45

OWP No.1294/2017; CPOWP No.06/2019; & LPA No. 194/2019

c) By issuance of Writ of Certiorari, the assertions made

by way of an excuse in compliance affidavit in Paras (a), (b), (c),

(e) and (f) be set aside and quashed because same are

unsustainable and having no legal or factual justification;

d) By issuance of writ of Mandamus, respondents be

directed to formally regularize petitioner’s land measuring 7

Marlas and 257 sft, in same survey No. 836 on same analogy and

terms and conditions which they have applied while regularizing

other identical cases in the Gogjibagh, Srinagar area as has been

illustrated hereinabove;

e) Also any other appropriate writ, order or direction/

relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of

the petitioner against the respondents with costs.=

02.

In the aforesaid Writ petition, in terms of order dated 14^th of

December, 2018, the Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

passed an interim order thereby directing the Respondents 5 and 7 to accept

the proportionate cost of the land as fixed in terms of Government Order No.

Rev (NDK) 37 of 1981 dated 7^th of February, 1981, without any further delay.

As the aforesaid order of the Court was not implemented by the Respondents

7 and 8, the Petitioner filed Contempt Petition, being CPOWP No. 06/2019,

for seeking implementation of the same. Thereafter, the Respondents, feeling

aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 14^th of December, 2018, assailed the

same in appeal bearing LPA No.194/2019. It is, thus clear that all the three

proceedings, viz. Writ Petition (OWP No.1294/2017); Contempt Petition

(CPOWP No.06/2019); and Appeal (LPA No.194/2019), arise out of one and

the same subject matter, as such, same stand clubbed and were, accordingly,

Page 4 of 45

OWP No.1294/2017; CPOWP No.06/2019; & LPA No. 194/2019

he