Serial No. 11 Regular Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) 466/2024 in [OWP 208/2010] CM(7641/2024) KHATIJA AND ORS …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Ainain Qadri, Advocate Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BIDHURI AND ANR. (REVENUE) ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE. ORDER 02.12.2025. Compliance report stands filed, a perusal whereof reveals that despite opportunities granted, petitioners failed to produce any valid or authenticated record to prove allotment of land in their favour, followed by corresponding entries in the revenue record, mandatory under the rules, with respect to allotment of the state land. The report also reveals that petitioners themselves admitted that they were never in possession, occupation or enjoyment of land in question at any point of time, and therefore, their claim was not based on settled possession. During consideration of the claim of the petitioners, pertinently, a factual enquiry was conducted by Tehsildar Eidgah, Srinagar, who, vide his report No. 588/OW/TEG/25, dated 16.07.2025, has produced the relevant revenue extracts to indicate that petitioner No. 1, Mst. Khatija, is residing in her house under Survey No. 2705-min at Nawakadal; petitioner No. 2, Mst. Rafiqa is untraceable within the jurisdiction of Zoonimar, Soura; petitioner No. 3, Muhammad Hussain Khan is recorded owner of land under survey No. 1457-min and 1462- min at Nawakadal and presently residing at Bhagwanpora, Lalbazar; petitioners No. 4 and 5, Mst. Naseema and Mst. Atiqa, are residing in their residential houses under Survey Nos. 2347-min and 2348-min at Nawakadal and petitioner No. 6 is not residing within the jurisdiction of Tehsil Eidgah. It is evident from the report of the concerned Tehsildar that none of the petitioners are landless or houseless, which is the eligibility requirement for the allotment of state land under the policy invoked by the petitioners. Besides, the allotment orders relied by the petitioners were neither traceable in the official record of Tehsil Eidgah, nor same were found recorded in the revenue record or acted upon. In view of the aforesaid, claim of the petitioners was found untenable and has been rejected by the respondents. Since the order dated 17.09.2013, sought to be enforced through the medium of present petition, stands complied with, the present petition does not survive. As such, the contempt notice is withdrawn and contempt is closed. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to assail the rejection order. Disposed of. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE Srinagar: 02.12.2025. Misba