HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 866/2023 CM No. 2085/2023 Mohd. Salim & Ors. …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. J. P. Gandhi, Advocate. Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 16.09.2025 1. Heard and considered. 2. The petitioners have challenged notice dated 24.03.2023 issued by respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota whereby the petitioners have been called upon to attend the said office in connection with the case relating to handing over the possession of land comprised in khasra No. 13 of the village Kamini, Tehsil Nagrota stated to have been demarcated by the Tehsildar Nagrota on 06.02.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that pursuant to the aforesaid notice when the petitioners approached respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota, the said authority refused to hear them and even the documents brought by the petitioners in support of their claim were not looked into by the said authority as a result whereof the petitioners have genuine apprehension that respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota may proceed ahead with Sr. No. 16 2 WP(C) No. 866/2023 evicting them from the land in question without adopting due course of law. It has been contended that even the demarcation report which is being relied upon in the impugned notice is ex parte in nature as the petitioners have never been associated with the demarcation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota did not have the authority to issue the impugned notice. 4. Having regard to the fact that only notice has been issued to the petitioners and no action has been taken by respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota pursuant thereto against the petitioners as yet, the grievance of the petitioners that they have not been heard and the documents in support of their contentions have not been considered by respondent No. 3-Tehsildar Nagrota, can be redressed by extending appropriate directions to respondent No. 3 in this regard. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a detailed representation against the impugned notice dated 24.03.2023 before respondent No. 3 within three weeks from today alongwith the documents in support of their claim. The petitioner shall be at liberty to urge all the grounds which are available to them in support of their claim. 6. If the petitioners file their representation within the aforesaid period, respondent No. 3 shall consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to them in the matter, whereafter the said respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3 WP(C) No. 866/2023 7. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy. 8. Till such time, the decision is taken by respondent No. 3, the present status with regard to the land which is subject matter of the writ petition shall not be disturbed. 9. Disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 16.09.2025 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Shivalee Khajuria 2025.09.17 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu