Serial No. 02 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM No. 147/2025 in LPA No. 11/2025 CM No. 146/2025 CM No. 148/2025 Basharat Ahmad Mir … Appellant(s) Through: - Mr Parvaiz Lone, Advocate. V/s Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. … Respondent(s) Through: - Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate. CORAM: Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge Hon’ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge (ORDER) 04.02.2025 Sanjeev Kumar-J: 01. By medium of CM No. 147/2025, the Applicant, namely, Basharat Ahmad Mir S/O Late Ali Mohammad Mir R/O Narparistan, Fateh Kadal, Srinagar is seeking leave of this Court to challenge an Order and Judgment dated 18th of September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (for short “the Writ Court”) in WP (C) No. 2107/2024 titled ‘Ghulam Mohammad Bhat v. UT of J&K and Ors.’. This application is belated, therefore, an application for condonation of delay, being CM No. 146/2025, has also been filed by the Applicant. 02. Since, there is a delay of 77 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal and the reason given is that the Applicant was not a party before the Writ Court and, therefore, was not aware of the Judgment impugned, we find the cause shown plausible and, as such, condone the delay. CM No. 146/2025 is, accordingly, disposed of. CM No. 147/2025 in LPA No. 11/2025 CM No. 146/2025 CM No. 148/2025 03. Insofar as the application filed by the Applicant for seeking leave to file appeal is concerned, we find no merit therein and the same is, therefore, declined. 04. What is sought to be challenged by way of LPA No. 11/2025 is an Order passed by the Writ Court dated 18th of September, 2024 disposing of the Petition of the Writ Petitioner/ Respondent No.6 herein by issuing a direction to the Revenue Agency concerned to consider the claim of the Respondent No.6 herein for issuance of revenue extracts as per Rules in his favour, provided there is no legal impediment. 05. The impugned Order is sought to be challenged by the Applicant, primarily, on the apprehension that the revenue extracts, if any, given to the Respondent No.6 by the Revenue Agency may be used by the Respondent No.6 for executing sale deeds and that would be in violation of the interim Order dated 3rd of October, 2023 passed by the Court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Baramulla in a civil Suit for specific performance of contract titled ‘Basharat Ahmad Mir v. Mohammad Najeeb Goni and Anr.’. True it is that with regard to the subject land, which is about 63 Kanals falling under different Khasra Numbers, there is a litigation going on between the Applicant and the Respondent No.6 herein. Based on some agreement to sell executed by the Respondent No.6, as an Attorney Holder of Mohammad Najeeb Goni, the Applicant has filed a Suit for specific performance of contract before the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Baramulla and, vide Order dated 3rd of October, 2023, the said Court has directed the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to the Suit land. 06. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, therefore, submits that the Applicant has reasons to apprehend that the Respondent No.6 herein, after obtaining the revenue extracts from the Revenue Agency, may execute sale deeds qua the subject land and in violation of the interim Order of status quo granted by the civil Court. We find this apprehension of the Applicant without any basis. The impugned Order, which is sought to CM No. 147/2025 in LPA No. 11/2025 CM No. 146/2025 CM No. 148/2025 be challenged by way of an appeal before us, only directs the Revenue Agency to consider the request of Respondent No.6 herein for issuance of revenue extracts qua the subject land, providing further that there should be no legal impediment in issuing such revenue extracts. The status quo Order qua the subject land passed by the civil Court, if it subsists, is itself an impediment insofar as the execution of the sale deeds pursuant to the issuance of revenue extracts is concerned. The Applicant has totally misconstrued the Order passed by the Writ Court and has unnecessarily approached this Court. 07. Be that as it may, we find no merit in this application. The same is, as such, dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal, being LPA No.11/2025, shall also stand dismissed, accordingly. (Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge SRINAGAR February 4th, 2025 “TAHIR” i. Whether the Order is approved for reporting? Yes/ No. Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 05.02.2025 11:42