Sr. No. 06 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR LPA 52/2023 in[OWP 1120/2011] CM(1337/2023) CM(1339/2023) MUSLIM COMMUNITY OF VILLAGE SARAI DANGERPORA AND OTHERS …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Ms. Suwaiba, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA & Mr. Mohammad Younis, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 04.03.2025 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/petitioners who are from the Muslim community of Village Sarai, Dangerpora and are aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-03-2022 passed in a writ petition bearing OWP No. 1120/2011. 2. The case before the learned Single Judge was a challenge given to the entries made in the ownership column of Jamabandi and Girdawari relating to the ownership of the ‘State’ over the land under Survey No. 1507 situated at Village Sarai, Dangerpora. There was also a prayer for a direction to the respondents before the learned Single Judge to hold enquiry into the matter and to restore the earlier position in the revenue records. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the case of the petitioners/appellants was that the land measuring 28 kanals and 8 marlas under survey No. 1507 was initially recorded as Shamilat Deh land belonging to the villagers as per the Jamabandi of 1987-88 (Bikrami), which is equivalent to the year 1967-68 of the Gregorian calendar. 4. It was stated that the revenue entries have been changed and in the ownership column the land in question was shown as a State land. It was further the case of the appellants that the possession of the land, however, still remained with the villagers and that the change in entries were made without any notice to the landholders which violated the relevant provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1962 and deprive the demands of their ownership rights over the land. 5. It was also the stand of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that they did not have knowledge of the change in revenue entries which they came to know very recently. 6. The respondents had opposed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge by filing the reply where they took a stand that the relevant entry had been made in the ownership column in the year 1967-68 as per the Gregorian calendar. It was also the stand of the respondents-State that the petitioners had an alternate remedy under the revenue laws which they did not avail and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. 7. After a bi-party hearing, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition with a speaking order. While doing so, the learned Single Judge held that the change in the entries of the revenue record had admittedly taken place in the year 1967-68 AD and that the petitioners/appellants came to the court after 42 years while they had an alternate remedy before the revenue authorities under Section 9 of the J&K Consolidation of Holdings Act 1962. The learned Single Judge further held that instead of availing the alternate remedy, the appellants/petitioners directly approached the High Court in order to get over the law of limitation on the grounds that they were ignorant of the change of revenue entries. 8. The contention of ignorance of the change in the revenue entries was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the grounds that the land in question and the periodic revision of the revenue records pertained to the land which is situated in the same village as the petitioners and, thereafter, held on legal grounds that where there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners in filing a writ petition and the same is not satisfactorily explained, the Court under Article 226 may refuse to exercise its plenary jurisdiction. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question is still being used as a graveyard is untenable. The law relating to delay and laches is well settled. Although while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, there is no statutory limitation applicable but broadly the law of laches would operate. 10. For the sake of convenience, even the law of laches relating to filing of a writ petition would normally take into account a period of 03 years from the date the cause of action has arisen until and unless, for reasons which are justifiable, the court, on its own ex debito justitiae, arrives at the conclusion that the delay was not deliberate and the interest of justice demands that the petition be heard on merits. However, before the court can come to such a conclusion, it is for the petitioners to cross the threshold by placing on record the material that would make the court take such a view. 11. In this case, no reasonable answer has been given by the appellants with regard to the delay. Undisputedly, they are villagers in the same village where the land is also situated and they ought to have exercised due diligence in protecting the said land if they were of the opinion that it was commonly used by the citizens of the village. 12. Under the circumstances, this court does not find any perversity in the judgment dated 29-03-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. 13. However, if any fresh cause of action arises to the appellants, they are given the liberty of approaching the revenue authorities, who shall decide their representations strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (PUNEET GUPTA) (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.03.2025 Aamir Whether the order is speaking Yes/No Whether approved for reporting Yes/No Amir Rashid Sofi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 06.03.2025 11:38