RAM LAL RAHI v. J AND K SPECIAL TRIBUNAL TH. ITS CHAIRMAN AND ORS.
OWP/312/2008 · 2026-07-28
Sanjay Parihar
body2008
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2008 DAILYLAW 537 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2008 DAILYLAW 537 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
OWP No. 312/2008 IA No. 475/2008 IA No. 1/2016
Smt. Sunita Devi and others
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
vs
J&K Special Tribunal & Ors. .…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Assisting counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for respondent No.1. Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER 28.07.2026
01. The instant writ petition was initially dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.12.2022 and was subsequently restored vide order dated 24.05.2023. Thereafter, it was once again dismissed for non-prosecution by this Court on 15.07.2025, while reiterating the observations made by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, to the effect that the petitioner, being the appellant before the Tribunal, was found to be a chronic violator and a past master at employing dilatory tactics. The Tribunal had further observed that the petitioner was in the habit of raising unauthorized constructions and thereafter seeking clemency for compounding the violations, which, according to the Tribunal, indicated that the present petition was also an extension of the same mindset. Subsequently, vide order dated 25.07.2025, the writ petition was restored to its original number. Serial No. 04
02. It is pertinent to mention that, during the pendency of the lis, the original petitioner, namely Ram Lal Rahi, passed away, and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 31.07.2023.
03. A bare perusal of the order passed by the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, reveals that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the evidence available on record, and no view other than the one already taken by the Tribunal appears to be possible.
04. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners, which indicates that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated.
( Sanjay Parihar )
Judge
Jammu 28.07.2026 Narinder
Narinder Kumar 2026.07.29 13:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document