CCP(S) No. 33/2023 In SWP No. 333/2015 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Pronounced on : 03.02.2026. Uploaded on : 05.02.2026. CCP(S) No. 33/2023 In SWP No. 333/2015 Nashter Singh …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohd. Latief Malik, Advocate Vs Shaleen Kabra & Ors. .….Respondents Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Assisting Counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) 01. Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioner is seeking implementation of order dated 25.04.2019 passed by the writ Court whereby a direction has been issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of SRO-520 dated 21.12.2017. 02. In terms of the said order, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of SRO No. 520 dated 21.12.2017. Regular List Serial No. 49 CCP(S) No. 33/2023 In SWP No. 333/2015 03. The compliance report stands filed by the respondents in which they have submitted that the case of the petitioner has been considered and a consideration order dated 11.10.2025 stands issued. Copy of the said order has been placed on record. 04. In the consideration order, the respondents have submitted that in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of “Ravinder Kumar Vs. District Magistrate and Others.”, the policy of providing additional benefits in the shape of employment in land acquisition cases should be treated as null and void. Therefore, the respondents have after assessing compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,81,000/- in respect of the acquired land of the petitioner released the said amount in favour of the petitioner in terms of order dated 06.10.2025. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that SRO-520 of 2017 stands repealed. 05. In view of the stand taken by the respondents that compensation has been paid to the petitioner and his claim for engagement as a casual worker has been rejected, it is evident that the respondents have complied with the directions of the writ Court by passing the CCP(S) No. 33/2023 In SWP No. 333/2015 consideration order. Therefore, the contempt proceedings do not survive. 06. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to the consideration order, it shall be open to him to challenge the same by way of appropriate legal proceedings, in accordance with law. 07. For what has been discussed herein before, the contempt proceedings are closed leaving it open to the petitioner to workout appropriate legal remedy, if so advised. 08. The contempt petition is accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 03.02.2026 SUNIL Whether the order is speaking ? : Yes Whether the order is reportable ? : No