HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM Nos. 7135/2025 & 7137/2025 in OWP No. 1712/2015 Zahida Parveen …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate. Vs State of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (17.11.2025) 01. Writ petition OWP No. 1712/2015 filed by the petitioner, wherein a land acquisition award passed in May, 2012 was being assailed, came to suffer dismissal for non-prosecution on 10.02.2025 on account of three consecutive non-appearances on behalf of the petitioner as well as her counsel. The writ court was constrained to dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 02. The petitioner has now come up with restoration application CM No. 7135/2025 filed on 07.11.2025 seeking restoration of the writ petition. 03. Since the restoration application is time barred, as such, accompanied with an application CM No. 7137/2025 thereby seeking condonation of delay of 237 days. Serial No. 08 & 9 2 OWP No. 1712/2015 04. The purported cause set out in the condonation of delay application by the petitioner to explain the delay is that she belongs to district Rajouri and was bearing an instructions from her counsel not to attend the case on each and every date of hearing and, therefore, was not carrying updated status of the case from her counsel’s end who in turn also did not apprise the petitioner about the status of the case while defaulting in his own appearance for the reasons best known to him. 05. It is being stated that from the end of the petitioner, she made efforts from time to time to contact her counsel but despite that the said counsel did not apprise the petitioner about the status of the case which constrained the petitioner as well as her husband to come to the Jammu to enquire the status only to know that the same has come to suffer dismissal. 06. The tone and tenor of the application for condonation of delay is all flimsy to shift the entire onus unto the counsel as if the counsel was in a state of bondage to the petitioner. 07. The petitioner in her application does not even mention the fact that as to whether she had made any telephonic/mobile call to her counsel engaged in the writ petition or that whether her counsel was having the mobile number of the petitioner to get in touch with the petitioner with respect to the status of the case. 08. Rajouri as a place is not a distant place from the Jammu from where a litigant cannot undertake a journey to come to Jammu in connection with gathering updated status of the case being 3 OWP No. 1712/2015 maintained in the High Court that too relatable to compensation of the land acquired. 09. Thus, the cause so set up in the condonation of delay is nothing but conjuncturing being done by the petitioner by aspersing the professional commitment of the counsel in the writ petition. 10. Instant applications are dismissed. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 17.11.2025 Shivalee