Sr. No. 3 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1490/2023 CM(3491/2023) CM(5068/2023) MOHAMMAD AKBAR NAIKOO …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA. Mr. Bilal A. Malla, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 27-03-2025 1. The petitioner, in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution has prayed for the following reliefs: - i. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the J&K Lumbardari Act 1972 r/w J&K Lumbardari Rules-1980 in leter and spirit and not to replace the petitioner without elections by some other temporary appointment Chowkidar. ii. A writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondents not to dislodge the petitioner without following the due process of law and he may be allowed to continue as Lumbardar and pay the wages to the applicant till elections are conducted. 2. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed on the premise that the petitioner came to be appointed as Lumberdar, by the respondents in terms of order dated 01.12.1987 for village Vessu, Tehsil Dooru, and though the petitioner has been discharging his duties with honesty and sincerity, the Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document respondents yet contemplate to replace him for unknown reasons without filling up the post in question in terms of Lumberdar Act of 1972, read with Rules of 1980. 3. Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein it is being, inter alia, stated that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age prescribed for the appointment of Lumberdar under the Rules, inasmuch as, on account of adverse reports received from the public, the engagement of the petitioner came to be terminated in terms of order dated 27.02.2023, and a new Lumberdar, namely, Mohammed Abdullah Itoo, came to be appointed in his place in terms of order dated 28.02.2023. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to Mr. Bhat, appearing counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been replaced by another substitute by the respondents without filling the post in question in terms of the Act and the Rules. On the contrary, Mr. Shah, appearing counsel for the respondents, however, would contend that the engagement of the Petitioner stands terminated as he has crossed the maximum age stipulated in the Act and the Rules for the post of Lumberdar, and in his place another Lumberdar in accordance with applicable rules came to be appointed more so in view of various developmental works being in progress. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the respondents, has invited the attention of this Court to SRO-412, dated 29.09.2017, in terms whereof various amendments were carried out in the Lumberdari Rules of 1980, in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Act of 1972 and in terms of the amendment to Rule 16, the term of office of an elected Lumberdar has been fixed five years or until he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. 5. Since the petitioner is stated to have crossed the age of 60 years on the date of termination of his engagement, as such, in terms of the aforesaid Rule, the petitioner cannot continue to hold the post of Lumberdar, notwithstanding the plea of the respondents that his termination was also ordered on account of adverse reports. Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 6. In view of the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, nothing survives for adjudication in the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition shall stand disposed of, along with all connected applications. 7. Disposed of. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27-03-2025 Junaid Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document