HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU OWP No. 1275/2016 Hira Lal Abrol and Ors. .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Karman S. Johal, Advocate v/s J & K Special Tribunal and Ors. .....Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1, 3 to 9 Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 21.05.2025 1 By this petition, the petitioners herein have challenged order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal and Ors. (herein referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in file No. STJ/382/2015,whereby the application seeking restoration of an appeal titled ‘Pritam Singh vs Hira Lal and others, which was dismissed in default on 11.03.2013, was allowed. 2 It is stated that the petitioner no. 1, along with the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner nos. 2 & 3, Shri Sudhir Khorana, were vested with ownership rights over the State land under the Roshni Scheme in their capacity as occupants. The vesting of ownership rights is in respect of a piece of land measuring 25 kanals, categorized as an educational institution, bearing Khasra No. 615 min, situated at Village Salmeri, Tehsil and District Samba. It is further stated that Shri Sudhir Khorana passed away on 17.12.2013, and after his demise, petitioner no. 2 & 3 were vested with the ownership rights, subject to the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- as determined by the Committee. In this regard, Sr. No. 27 OWP No. 1275/2016 2 the petitioners have already deposited an amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- against proper receipt. 3 The aforesaid order came to be challenged by Mr. Pritam Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 2, on 05.06.2008, by way of an appeal. However, the said appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 11.03.2013. After dismissal of the appeal on 11.03.2013, Mr. Pritam Singh passed away on 31.10.2014, and no application seeking restoration of the appeal was filed during his lifetime. Subsequently, on 28.12.2015, the son of Mr. Pritam Singh, respondent No.2 herein, filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal. 4 The Tribunal issued notice to petitioner no. 1 and the predecessor- in-interest of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Since Sh. Sudhir Khorana had already passed away on 17.12.2013, as such notice could be served upon him. It is stated that on 20.05.2016, the Tribunal allowed the application of respondent no. 2 on the ground that the non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not bar the Tribunal from exercising its discretion to condone the delay. Accordingly, the case was restored to its original number. 5 The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.05.2016 and have challenged the same on numerous grounds. 6 However, it is stated by the learned counsel representing respondent no. 2 i.e. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, that in light of the judgment dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench in PIL No. 2011 titled ‘Prof. S.K. Bhalla Vs. State of J & K and Ors.’, wherein the J & K Lands (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 (commonly known as the Roshni Act) has been declared null and void and the mutations attested under the said Act have been set aside, respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the litigation which was restored before the Tribunal pursuant to the impugned order. OWP No. 1275/2016 3 7 Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel, further states that since the mutations have already been set aside in terms of the judgment(Supra), as such he does not want to press the appeal/revision pending before the Tribunal. 8 In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to agitate the matter afresh, if any cause of action still survives. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge JAMMU 21.05.2025 Manik