Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10604 (JK)

RAJ RAINA KANDHARI (MUJOO) v. MR.RAJIV KUMAR RANJAN,COMMR/SECY (REVENUE) AND ORS

CCP(S)/166/2025 · 2025-12-22

Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S.No.51 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 166/2025 in[WP(C) 3067/2024] RAJ RAINA KANDHARI (MUJOO)(SENIOR CITIZEN) …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikandar, Advocate Vs. MR.RAJIV KUMAR RANJAN COMMR/SECY (REVENUE) AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 22-12-2025 1. The instant petition arises out of the order/judgment dated 30.12.2024, whereby WP(C) No. 3067/2024 came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to undertake an inquiry under Section 94 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act on the application made by the petitioner on 29.06.2024, and to conduct a detailed demarcation of the petitioner’s property, thereby retrieving the land under illegal occupation, if any. In addition, respondents 4 and 5 were directed to complete the inquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the said order, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and law. 2. Compliance report has been filed by the respondents stating that the requisite proceedings were undertaken and a thorough demarcation was conducted by a duly constituted team in accordance with law and rules, thereby complying with the judgment of the learned Writ Court. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents were under an obligation to provide a copy of the demarcation and inquiry report carried out in furtherance of the learned Writ Court’s judgment, which, till date, has not been supplied to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents assures the Court that a copy of the inquiry and demarcation report shall be supplied to the petitioner positively, and accordingly seeks one week’s time to do the same. 5. In view of the compliance report filed by the respondents, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the present contempt petition pending. Accordingly, the proceedings in the present contempt petition stand closed and the rule, if any, is discharged. However, respondents 4 and 5 are directed to furnish a copy of the inquiry and demarcation report to the petitioner within one week. 6. Disposed of. ; (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 22-12-2025 Mubashir