HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU OWP No. 717/2014 IA No. 961/2014 Vinod Kumar Dhar …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. R. S. Kotwal, Advocate. Vs District Magistrate, Ganderbal & Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Ms. Chenta Manhas, Advocate Mr. P. N. Bhat, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 18.09.2025 1. Heard and considered. 2. The main grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that the impugned order dated 14.09.2013 has been passed by respondent No. 1-District Magistrate, Ganderbal by exercising powers under section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred as “Act of 1997”) without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was a party to the proceedings before the District Magistrate. It has also been submitted that order dated 16.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 2, Additional District Magistrate, Ganderbal, is also not sustainable in law as the basic order dated 14.09.2013 has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Sr. No. 04 2 OWP No. 717/2014 3. The petitioner has claimed that the land in respect of which the impugned order dated 14.09.2013 has been passed is under his co-ownership, therefore, possession of the said land could not have been taken over by the District Magistrate, Ganderbal by exercising powers under section 5 of the Act of 1997. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that order impugned dated 14.09.2013 is appealable in nature in terms of section 7 of the Act of 1997, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. It has also been contended that the land which is subject matter of the impugned order is property belonging to a temple, as such, the petitioner can claim ownership/co-ownership regarding the said property. 6. Having regard to the fact that the impugned order dated 14.09.2013 has been passed without hearing the petitioner which is clear from the contents of the said order, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition in spite of availability of alternate remedy of appeal, is maintainable. 7. Since the petitioner has not been heard by the District Magistrate, Ganderbal before passing the impugned order, it would be appropriate for the said authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter, by way of post decisional hearing. 3 OWP No. 717/2014 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Ganderbal to afford post decisional hearing to the petitioner, who shall be permitted to place on record documents that he may like to produce and to file a detailed representation. The private respondents shall also be given an opportunity of hearing by the District Magistrate, before taking a fresh look at the impugned order. 9. After hearing both the parties, the District Magistrate, Ganderbal shall either confirm the impugned order dated 14.09.2013 or pass a fresh order, if the situation warrants so. Till such time, fresh decision is taken by the District Magistrate, status- quo with regard to the property which is subject matter of the impugned order dated 14.09.2013 shall be maintained. 10. Disposed of, accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 18.09.2025 Shivalee Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: No Shivalee Khajuria 2025.09.19 18:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu