HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CJ Court Case: LPA No. 98/2023 Chelda Phal Band Biradari Members and others …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, Adv. v/s Union Territory of J&K and others …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG for Nos. 1 to 5 Ms. Nazia Afzal, Adv. vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for No. 6 CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 26.05.2025 1. This is an intra court appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules against order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge: “Mr. O. S. Bandral, learned counsel appearing vice Mr. O. P. Thakur, Senior Advocate submits that the arguing counsel Mr. Thakur, Sr. Advocate, has left the Court because of some health problem. He further submits that in case order of status quo is modified to the extent that raising of construction on the property in question, the same may be made subject to outcome of the writ petition and in the event the petitioners succeed, the respondents would not claim any compensation or cost of construction raised by them on the property over the land. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the order of status quo is modified in the extent that any construction raised over the property shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition. List on 24.07.2023.” 1 2 LPA No. 98/2023 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the petition referred to above, was listed on 19.04.2023. Mr. O. P. Thakur, Senior Advocate, who happened to be the counsel for the appellants was to appear and argue the matter. However, owing to a medical emergency, he had to leave the Court, for he required immediate medical attention. Thus, in the given circumstances, Mr. O. S. Bandral, Advocate appeared vice Mr. O. P. Thakur and apprised the Court that Mr. Thakur had since left. However, as the counsel for the respondents insisted before the Single Judge to modify the interim order dated 19.04.2018, Mr. O. S. Bandral Advocate also expressed his agreement to modify the order of status quo, subject, however, to the conditions numerated in the order. He asserts that Mr. Bandral was neither the counsel for the appellants/petitioners nor was he authorized by the appellants or even by the learned senior counsel to make any such statement. 3. However, having argued the matter at some length, learned counsel for the appellants submits for the matter is now listed before the Single Judge on 24.07.2025, let this appeal be disposed of with a direction to the learned Single Judge to consider and finally dispose of the matter on the date fixed. Further, as the coordinate Bench, while issuing notice in the present appeal on 07.17.2023, had ordered status quo as regards the subject property, the said order be continued till 24.07.2025. 4. In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of statement made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 3 LPA No. 98/2023 5. We are sanguine that the learned Single Judge shall make all possible endeavours to consider and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. 6. Till 24.07.2025, the order of status quo passed by the coordinate Bench in the present proceedings on 17.07.2023 shall continue to operate. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jammu 26.05.2025 Rakesh Rakesh Kumar 2025.05.28 08:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document