HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- WP(C) No.1753/2025 Rattno Devi and Anr. Sa ....Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Raghav Sawhney, Advocate Vs Tehsildar Bahu Jammu and Ors. .….Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (21.07.2025) 1. There are factual deficits in the writ petition which cannot admit of any amend from the end of the counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, there is no other option for the counsel of the petitioner except to have withdrawal of the present petition with liberty to file a fresh one so as to come up with the better statement of the facts made in the petition as to how the petitioner-Rattno Devi is claiming herself to be the lawful owner in possession of the land measuring 3.4 kanals in khasra no. 577 and 587 which is said to be situated at Saink Colony, Lower Chowadhi, tehsil Bahu, Jammu. Serial No. 09 2 WP(C) No.1753/2025 2. Except the power of attorney purportedly executed by petitioner in view of her agent, namely, Darshan Singh through whom the present petition have been filed, there is nothing in the name of a document worth reliance for this Court to accept the averment of the petitioner that she is an owner of the land comprising khasra Nos. 577 and 587. 3. The attorney deed dated 27.02.2006 alleged to have been executed by petitioner in favour of the attorney holder-Sardar Darshan Singh is relating itself only to the land comprising in khasra no. 587 to the extent of 1.12 kanal without any delineation and description of the said 1.12 kanal of plot of the land. 4. It is surprising for this Court to note that the attorney holder-Sardar Darshan Singh is having in his possession an attorney deed of 2006 but at the time of filing of writ petition in 2025, he does not have even bare essential particulars relatable to 1.12 kanal of land in khasra no. 587 so as to identify its delineation and description and that is where this Court is coming up with the observation that the writ petition is deficit of essential facts. 5. The present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file fresh one provided a certified copy of this writ petition along with a 3 WP(C) No.1753/2025 certified copy of this order accompanies the fresh writ petition, in case it comes to be filed by the petitioner. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE JAMMU 21.07.2025 Sneha