S. No. 122 Supp. Cause List IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 673/2025 CM No. 1681/2025 Fayaz Ahmad Malik …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Raja Rathore, Adv. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nisar Shah, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 26.03.2025 1. In the instant petition, petitioner herein is seeking restraint upon the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land measuring 2-Kanals and 10-Marlas under Khasra Nos 2279 min, 2280 min and 2282 min situated at Bhagwanpora Verinag, District Anantnag, and a three storied residential house constructed thereupon with a further direction upon the respondent No. 4 to decide the sale permission application of petitioner under Section 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. 2. The petitioner has purchased land measuring 2-Kanals 10- Marlas from one Prithvinath and the agreement was executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2018. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had approached this court by way of filing WP (C) 984/2024, which was disposed of in terms of order dated 10.05.2024 with a direction to the Additional District Magistrate (the Nodal Officer) to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997. 4. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the order supra of this court, the petitioner approached the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner on 26.04.2024 under Section 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997, but till date the application of the petitioner has not been decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would feel satisfied if the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to decide the application filed by the petitioner dated 26.04.2024, within a reasonable period of time. Learned counsel for the respondents states that he is not averse to the proposition being made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider the application filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order by passing a speaking order thereon in terms of the Act and Rules applicable. 7. Disposed of. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 26.03.2025 Sakeena