Serial No. 50 Regular List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(S) No. 343/2025 Mohda Bhat …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. B.S.Bali, Advocate Vs. Bilal Mohi ud Din and Ors ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy.AG. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE. ORDER 21.04.2026 01. The instant contempt petition arises out of an Order dated 6th March, 2024, passed in WP(C) No. 972/2023, by virtue of which, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to demarcate the land which was subject matter of the writ petition. 02. The respondents have filed the compliance report, in which, a specific stand has been taken by them that they have duly complied with the direction passed by this Court as the Tehsildar, Budgam vide Communication No. 19-22/OQ/BUD/.24/Court/F dated 17th April, 2024 constituted a team of official under the close supervision of Naib Tehsildar concerned to demarcate the land. The further stand of the respondent in the compliance report is that the team, so constituted, carried out the demarcation of the land of estate Gogo Budgam in presence of the petitioner (Mohda Bhat) and in the first instance a comprehensive examination of the revenue records of the said estate as well as documents furnished by the petitioner was carried out and, accordingly, a detailed demarcation report was prepared by the team, which establishes that petitioner was originally recorded as recorded owner for land measuring 22 Kanals and 10 Marlas and thereafter the petitioner has already alienated his entire share of land through various sale deeds executed over the years. 03. The respondents have also taken a stand that the petitioner on spot identified survey numbers 205,206,255,306,477,794,728,705, and 631 and claimed that his inherited property is existing in these survey numbers. However, settlement of the village Gogo has been carried out in the year 2013-2014 and the petitioner is no where reflected as recorded owner for any quantum of land against the aforesaid survey numbers. 04. I have perused the stand taken by the respondents and also examine the direction passed by this Court in terms of Order dated 6th March, 2024, which is sought to be complied with through the medium of instant contempt petition. 05. Since the direction passed by this Court was only to the extent of issuance of a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to demarcate the land, which direction has been implemented in its letter and spirit, therefore, nothing remains further to be adjudicated upon. 06. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are closed. However, the closure of the contempt proceedings shall not come in the way of petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under law. (WASIM SADIQ NARGAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 21.04.2026 “Shamim Dar”