HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CPOWP No. 183/2017 in OWP No. 1103/2014 IA No. 1/2017 CM No. 3549/2022, 3065/2023, 556/2024, 6642/2021 Karanjeet Singh and others …..Petitioner(s) Through: None Vs Pankaj Sharma and another .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate vice Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDER 26.08.2025 1. The present contempt petition arises out of the order/judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Writ Court by virtue of which the petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of in the following manner:- “7. In view of the above, the writ petition-in-hand is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu to constitute a Committee headed by the Assistant Commissioner from the Revenue Department to demarcate the land measuring 9 kanals bearing Khasra No. 746-Min, situated at Village Gole, Tehsil and District Jammu within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order along with complete set of paper book is served upon him. The Committee shall thereafter within next two weeks fix a date for demarcation of the land-in-question and would also give prior information/notice to the petitioners as well as JDA for the said date. If the Committee founds that the above said land is in possession of the JDA, then JDA shall forthwith hand over the same to the petitioners.” 2. Since the order dated 30.09.2016 was not complied with, the instant contempt petition has been preferred, in which the notice was issued on 05.05.2018. Sr. No.60 2 CPOWP No. 183/2017 in OWP No. 1103/2014 3. The record reveals that the statement of facts was initially filed on behalf of the respondents on 28.02.2019. Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the JDA submits that a fresh compliance report has been filed on 20.12.2024, however, the same is not on record. He has furnished a copy of the compliance report filed on 20.12.2024 in the open court, which is taken on record. 4. From a bare perusal of the fresh compliance report, it is evident that the respondents have taken a specific stand that the petitioners along with the Revenue team of JDA visited the spot on 16.12.2024 and the land of the petitioners as per the demarcation report has been shown to the petitioners and with the consent of the petitioners it has been amicably decided that out of the petitioners’ land measuring 09 kanals, the possession of their land measuring 08 kanals 07 marlas can be handed over to them and in respect of rest of their land measuring 13 marlas (deficit land), the petitioners are willing to accept the JDA land which is adjacent to their proprietary land. The details of the land as per the site plan have also been reflected in the said compliance report, which is as under:- S. No. Land Marked Quantum Of Land Status 1. A 0K1-13M1 JDA land proposed to petitioner for his deficit land which is part of JDA colony 2. B 02K1-04M1 Proprietary land of the petitioner 3. C 03K1-10M1 Proprietary land of the petitioner 4. D 02K1-13M1 Proprietary land of the petitioner Total 09K1-00M1 5. Heard learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Since the direction passed by this Court was specific to the extent of constituting a committee headed by the Assistant Commissioner from the Revenue Department to demarcate the land in question by giving prior notice to the petitioners as well as JDA and subject to the finding of the Committee, if it is found that the land in question is in possession of JDA, then JDA was directed to hand over the same to the petitioners. 3 CPOWP No. 183/2017 in OWP No. 1103/2014 7. Since the respondents-Revenue Team in light of the stand taken by way of the fresh compliance report have already visited on spot on 16.12.2024 and demarcation of the land has been carried out, a perusal whereof reveals that it had been amicable decided that out of the petitioners’ land measuring 09 kanals, the possession of their land measuring 08 kanals 07 marlas can be handed over to them and in respect of rest of their land i.e. 13 marlas (deficit land), the petitioners are willing to accept the JDA land, which is adjacent to their proprietary land. 8. At this stage Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the JDA submits that JDA in furtherance of the stand taken by the respondents in the compliance report has already handed over land measuring 08 kanals 07 marlas to the petitioners and in respect of rest of their land measuring 13 marlas (deficit land), the petitioners have shown their willingness to accept the JDA land, which is adjacent to their proprietary land. Thus the grievance as projected in the instant contempt petition stands redressed, as the order/judgment passed by the Writ Court stands complied with in its letter and spirit. This is the precise reason that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners today in the instant contempt petition. 9. In view of the aforesaid backdrop and in light of the stand taken by the respondents in the compliance report, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping this contempt petition alive, as the order/judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Writ Court stands complied with. 10. Thus, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged. 11. Disposed of along with the connected applications. (Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge Jammu 26.08.2025 Nikhil Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No. Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.