DILLAWAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS
WP(C)/1195/2025 · 2025-05-16
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3329 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3329 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Sr. No. 88
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No. 1195/2025 CM No. 2858/2025 Cav No. 1075/2025
Dillawar Singh and ors.
…. Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
V/s
UT of J&K and ors. …..Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. S.M. Choudhary, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER 16.05.2025
1. By this petition, the petitioners herein have challenged order dated 18.04.2025 passed by respondent No. 2- the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba (with the powers of Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms).
2. It is stated that respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 18.04.2025, whereby he has proceeded to hear the arguments on merits of the appeal without first adjudicating upon the application seeking condonation of delay, which has been filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 herein.
3. Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that respondent No. 2 has no authority to consider the merits of the appeal without first deciding the application seeking condonation of delay of about 43 years.
4. He submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, if the instant petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to first consider and decide the
application seeking condonation of delay filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and thereafter proceed to hear the appeal on merits, if required.
5. Learned counsel for the private respondents states that he is not averse to the proposition made by Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, with the consent of learned counsel of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the threshold and is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to first consider and decide the application seeking condonation of delay filed by respondents No. 4 and 5, and thereafter, to proceed with the consideration of the appeal on merits, if required, on the next date of hearing.
7.
Disposed of as such.
8.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
Jammu 16.05.2025 AKHILESH