Serial No. 22 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 469/2024 MST. AZIZI … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.M.Y.Lone, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Maha Majid, AC for official respondents Mr. M. Amin, Advocate for private respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 22.04.2025 1. The short grievance projected by the petitioner in the instant petition is that the restoration application filed by her before Commissioner Agrarian Reforms/ Additional Deputy Commissioner, Budgam for restoration of two appeals filed against mutation No. 1564 dated 24.07.1983 and mutation No. 1173 dated 17.04.1986 pertaining to land measuring 15 kanals situated at Dharmuna, Budgam, which appeals had been dismissed in default for non- prosecution, came to be rejected on the premise that the said appeals had earlier as well been dismissed for non-prosecution on account of absence of the appellant/ petitioner herein and that the appellant/petitioner herein has been a habitual absentee in the appeals. Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the private respondents herein who has entered appearance today in response to the notice issued by this Court. 2. Having regard to the issues involved in the instant petition inasmuch as the impugned order dated 27.01.2024, passed by respondent 2 herein, it is manifest that the respondent -2 in terms of impugned order, indisputably has dismissed two appeals filed by the petitioner herein against the aforesaid mutations fundamentally on the premise that the appellant/petitioner herein has been a habitual absentee in pursuing the appeals and that the appeals had previously as well had been dismissed for non-prosecution . 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant/ petitioner herein had preferred the restoration applications before respondent 2 herein well within time for re- admission of the said appeals so is also not in dispute that the appeals have not been decided on merits by the respondent 2 herein. 4. Thus ends of justice demand the disposal of the instant petition at this stage by allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order and directing the re-admission of the appeals filed by the appellant/petitioner herein before respondent 2 to the original numbers, however, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- to be payable by the counsel for the petitioner to the counsel for the private respondents herein within 10 days time from today. 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed in terms of above. 6. Parties shall appear before the appellate authority/respondent 2 on 30th of April 2025 who shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 22.04.2025 “S.Nuzhat”