Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

1981 DAILYLAW 1 (JK)

SHAGUFTA MAJEED v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND OTHERSt)

WP(C)/1981/2026 · 2026-08-14

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Writ Petition (Civil)body1981

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 112 Supplementary Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1981/2026 CM(5380/2026) SHAGUFTA MAJEED & ANR. …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ayaz Gul, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND OTHERSt) ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Haris Khan, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. ORDER 14.08.2026 1. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be the owner in possession of land measuring 06 Marlas along with structure falling under Khasra No. 1281 Min situated at Mouza Rawalpora, which she had purchased pursuant to the sale deed executed on 06.12.2024. The petitioner No. 2 now intends to sell the aforementioned land to petitioner No. 1, for which the revenue extracts/fard is a pre-requisite. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 moved an application before the respondents seeking issuance of revenue extracts/Fard in her favour for the aforementioned land. 2. It is stated that the petitioner No. 2 applied to the respondents for issuance of the revenue extracts, which has been rejected by the respondents in terms of the Circular No. 05-JK(Rev) of 2025 dated 04.04.2025. 3. Aggrieved of the rejection, the petitioners have approached this court with the petition in hand, seeking quashing of the Circular dated 04.04.2025. 4. It appears that the petitioner No. 2 is the owner in possession of the aforementioned land, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed. The petitioner No. 2 now intends to alienate the said property and, accordingly, applied to the Revenue Department through online mode for issuance of the Fard, vide Application No. 03942209202522361058, and also deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 1,000/-. However, to the dismay of the petitioner, the respondents refused to issue the revenue extracts/Fard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s application originates from the Circular dated 04.04.2025, issued by the respondents, by virtue of which, all the Deputy Commissioners were directed to immediately intervene and ensure recreation of missing/dilapidated Mussavis within two months, failing which, land alienation in such Revenue villages be stopped forthwith. 6. Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG has submitted that vide communication dated 27.07.2026, all the Deputy Commissioners have been directed to follow the standing order and to desist from using the circular dated 04.04.2025 as an alibi for not providing lawful services to the citizens and in line with the standing orders, as well as in terms of communication dated 08.04.2026, whereby, the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, has requested the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, to review the directions issued vide Circular dated 04.04.2025 and to authorize the concerned Deputy Commissioners to issue Fard in all cases where the Mussavies are dilapidated, on the basis of the available records and field books, as was the practice in the past. Learned Sr. AAG also submits that this Court has already disposed of WP(C) No. 1779/2026, titled “Niyaz Ahmad Jan v. UT of J&K & Ors.”, on the basis of the aforesaid communications. 7. In view of above, there is no reason available with the respondents now to refuse the requisite revenue extracts/Fard in favour of the petitioner No. 2 in respect of the land in question, thereby enabling her to alienate the same by way of a gift deed or through any other lawful mode, the petitioner No. 2 being the lawful owner thereof. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to issue the requisite revenue extracts/Fard in favour of the petitioner No. 2 in respect of the land in question. Insofar as the prayer for quashing Circular dated 04.04.2025 is concerned, the same stands addressed by the communication dated 27.07.2026, as such, no further direction in that regard is required to be passed by this Court. 9. Disposed of in the manner indicated above, along with connected application(s). (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 14.08.2026 “Adil Ismail”