Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2020 DAILYLAW 738 (JK)

AJIT SINGH AND ANR v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K TH REVENUE DEPTT AND ORS

WP(C)/706/2020 · 2026-01-30

Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Writ Petition (Civil)body2020

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sr. No. 21 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 706/2020 Ajit Singh and another …. Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through:- None. V/s UT of J&K and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Mr. G.S. Thakur, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 28.01.2026 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has strenuously argued that the interim direction passed by this Court on 03.03.2020 is operating harshly against the interests of his clients and has prayed that the said direction be modified or vacated, in view of the fact that the suit preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the learned Sub- Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Samba, on the same subject matter has already been dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2025. 2. In light of the aforesaid development, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, submitted that the interim direction passed by this Court be vacated so that the concerned Tehsildar, Bari Brahmana, Samba, is in a position to carry out the demarcation in terms of order dated 27.02.2020, which is the subject matter of the instant petition. 3. Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned counsel, further submitted that carrying out the demarcation in terms of the aforesaid order will not cause any P a g e | 2 prejudice to either party and would, in fact, facilitate adjudication of the rights and interests of both parties. Accordingly, he prayed that the order passed by this Court, referred to above, be modified or vacated. The said order is taken on record. 4. This Court would ordinarily have vacated the interim order, being prima facie satisfied with the submissions advanced by Mr. Thakur. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner is not present today, this Court, with a view to do complete justice, deems it appropriate to adjourn the matter to Friday, i.e., 30.01.2026, granting liberty to learned counsel for the petitioner to address arguments on the next date, particularly in light of the development that the suit preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs has already been dismissed. 5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the matter is heard in part. Registry is directed to list this matter on Friday, i.e., 30.01.2026, in the supplementary cause list. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu: 28.01.2026 Michal Sharma/PS