Serial No. 21 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA 108/2024 SYED GHULAM MOHIDIN SHAH GEELANI …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Syed Ovais Geelani, Advocate Vs. UT OF JK & ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Alla-ud-Din Ganie, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 20.04.2026 1. This Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 12 filed by the appellant, is directed against the order dated 29th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ Court”] in WP(C) No. 963/2020 titled “Syed Ghulam Mohidin Shah Geelani Vs. Union Territory of J&K & Ors.”, whereby the writ Court had dismissed the petition filed by the appellant on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the writ Court is not sustainable, for the reason that, in the absence of a reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it was not possible to come to a conclusion as to whether the facts alleged in the writ petition were disputed or not. 3. The short case projected by the appellant before the writ Court was that he is the owner of land measuring 2 kanals and 16 marlas, covered under khasra No. 777, situated at Village Laderwan, District Kupwara, out of which 1 kanal was taken by the Department of Rural Development for construction of Panchayat Ghar without payment of any compensation or providing any employment in lieu thereof. Although the respondents herein appeared before the writ Court, but they were not given adequate Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26 opportunity to file objections. It seems that at the time of consideration of the matter, the respondents produced record, a perusal whereof indicated that the subject land measuring 1 kanal was not forcibly taken over by the Department of Rural Development but was voluntarily donated by the appellant herein. 4. The Court, instead of deciding the petition on the basis of record, after allowing the respondents to file their reply, dismissed the petition on the ground that it involved disputed questions of fact. 5. For the foregoing reasons, we find merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment passed by the writ Court is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the writ court for fresh adjudication. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents shall ensure filing of the reply by or before the next date of hearing before the writ Court. 7. List before the writ Court on 14.07.2026. 8. Disposed of. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 20.04.2026 “ARIF” Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 22.04.26