HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.948/2022 Sat Paul & Ors. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, Advocate Vs UT of J&K & Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER (08.08.2025) WP(C) No.948/2022 1. The petitioners through the medium of present writ petition have challenged order dated 30.04.2021 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Billawar whereby a direction has been issued for attestation of mutation in respect of land measuring 3 kanal 9 marlas comprised in khasra No.1562/882 situated at village Ramkot, tehsil Ramkot in favour of private respondents No.4 to 6. 2. Heard and considered. Serial No. 17 2 WP(C) No.948/2022 3. The ground for impugning the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reform Commissioner, Billawar is that no notices were served upon the petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order and that the said order has been passed in ex parte without hearing the petitioners. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the same has been passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reform Commissioner), Billawar in ex parte. It is recorded in the impugned order that summons were issued to the private respondents but as they failed to appear in the Court, ex parte decision was passed against them. 5. The counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Billawar clearly indicates that though summons were issued to the petitioners, however, there is no report with regard to the service of summons upon the petitioners. Thus, the contention of the respondents that no service of summons was effected upon them, gets substantiated from the counter-affidavit filed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Billawar. 3 WP(C) No.948/2022 6. In the absence of the service of summonses upon the petitioners, it was not open to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reform Commissioner), Billawar to proceed ex parte against them and to pass the impugned order. The same is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 7. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.04.2021, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Billawar is set aside and the case is remanded to the said authority with a direction to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioners as well as the private respondents. 8. The parties shall maintain status quo as regards the ownership and possession of the property in question, till such time the matter is heard and decided by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Billawar. 9. The application of petitioners shall be decided by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Agrarian Reforms Commissioner), Billawar, expeditiously preferable within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the said authority. 4 WP(C) No.948/2022 CCP(S) No.14/2024 Since the main petition has been decided today, therefore, the contempt petition which is in respect of interim order passed in the main petition, does not survive and, is accordingly, disposed of. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 08.08.2025 Sneha