Serial No. 15 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1971/2020 CM(1302/2023) CM(1303/2023) 1. Asha (60 years) D/O Abdul Khaliq W/O Abdul Rehman Pandit. 2. Shahmali (60 years) D/O Mahda Dar. 3. Abdul Ahad Bhat, (65 years) S/O Gul Bhat. 4. Reyaz Ahmad Bhat, (45 years) S/O Mohammad Abdullah Bhat. All residents of Baharabad, Tehsil Hajin, District Bandipora. ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr Nisar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate. V/s 1. Government of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/ Secretary, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srinagar. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora. 4. Tehsildar, Hajin. 5. Naib Tehsildar, Hajin. .… Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE. (ORDER) 19.05.2026 1. Petitioners, through the medium of this petition claim to the owners in possession, since the time of their predecessors-in-interest of the land comprising of Survey Nos. 1957 (13 Kanals); 1954 (3 Kanals & 06 Marlas); 1953 (3 Kanals & 13 Marlas); 1957 (4 Kanals & 01 Marla); 2014 (13 Marlas); 2015 (04 Kanals & (07 Marlas); 2016 (01 Kanals and 07 Marlas); 2017 (01 Kanals and 17 Marlas); and 2018 (04 Kanals & 01 Marla), allege that their land is being used by the respondents for construction of a road without paying any compensation thereof. 2. Pursuant to the notice by this Court, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 have filed Reply and in Paragraph No. 5 of the parawise Reply, they have explicitly submitted that the land bearing Survey No. 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957 ,2014, 2015,2016, 2017, 2018 of estate Baharbad is recorded as proprietary land, in the name of the different land owners and the respondents have neither interfered with the said proprietary land nor have threatened the petitioners, of their dispossession, stating the allegations are misleading, baseless and denied outrightly. It was however, submitted that illegal occupation of the encroachers from the state land falling under Survey No. 1958, was removed and that the process of removal of the encroachment from the above state land was carried out after following due procedure of law and upon issuance of prior notices. 4. In view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents in their reply, that the proprietary land of the petitioners has not been interfered with, for the construction of any road, the grievance projected in the instant petition does not survive. The petition is, thus, found to be misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed, along with connected application(s). 5. Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated. (M. A. CHOWDHARY) JUDGE SRINAGAR May 19th, 2026 “Shoaib javid”