Serial No. 163 Supplementary Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 677/2025 CM No. 1692/2025 Mohammad Sidiq Malik And Anr. …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Shiekh Younus, Advocate. Vs. Union Territory of J and K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 26.03.2025 1. The petitioners were the appellants in an agrarian appeal before the appellate authority of Additional Deputy Commissioner (Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms), Pulwama on file No. 88/89/ADC/APP titled as ‘Mohd. Sidiq Malik and Anr. V. Safi Ullah’. 2. After having remained on the docket of the appellate authority for almost one year, the petitioners, as appellants, are said to have made a withdrawal of the said appeal, which as per the learned counsel for the petitioners herein was not made for the sake of withdrawal but for the sake of facilitating the petitioners to actually present the said appeal before the competent authority i.e., the Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms in relation to the territorial jurisdiction wherein the subject land of the impugned mutations is falling. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the appellate authority of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms in creating a mix of disposal by simultaneously acting upon an application of the respondent produced before him. 4. It is against this outcome that the petitioners are coming forward with the present writ petition finding themselves left with no other and further legal remedy at their disposal but missing out that in case the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Pulwama is suffering from factual omissions which are relevant to determine the actual nature of disposal of the matter then the petitioners have the remedy of procedural review available. In fact, under the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 power of review on substantive side is also available. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the consideration accorded to application of the respondent with respect to the nature of subject land was also without inviting any response from the petitioner’s end in their own appeal and that is against the Rules of Natural Justice. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this court leaves the petitioners well within their right to approach the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Agrarian Reforms), Pulwama to seek review which upon being filed shall be then disposed of on merits by the said authority. 7. Disposed of. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 26.03.2025 shoaib