SAMEER AHMAD BHAT AND ORS v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND ORS
WP(C)/1425/2025 · 2025-06-24
Shahzad Azeem
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7810 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7810 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Serial No. 51 Supplementary-1 Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 1425/2025 CM No. 3705/2025
Sameer Ahmad Bhat & Ors. … Petitioner(s)
Through: - Mr Hilal Ahmad Wani, Advocate. V/s
Union Territory of J&K and Anr. … Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
(ORDER) 24.06.2025
Resorting to extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioners have impugned the communication dated 23rd of May, 2025 issued by Tehsildar, Budgam to Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budgam seeking assistance for removal of encroachment.
It appears that the facts germane to the grievance of the Petitioners are rooted in notice dated 28th of April, 2025, whereby the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Sub-Division Budgam issued notice to the Petitioner No.2 to restore the irrigation canal to its original route within a period of 10 (ten) days failing which appropriate action shall be resorted.
Admittedly, as per the pleadings available on record, the action under challenge has been taken by the respondents/ authorities under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Irrigation Act, 1978. However, Section 19 of the Act of 1978 deals with protection of water courses against demolition etc. Section 19 (4) of the Act of 1978 provides a remedy to the aggrieved person against an order of the Canal Officer by preferring an appeal within a period of thirty (30) days before the Divisional Canal
Officer. However, despite the availability of an efficacious and statutory remedy, the Petitioners have approached this Court without justifying the non-availing of equal and efficacious remedy before the statutory authority.
In view of above and having regard to the fact that no case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction has been made out, this Writ Petition is held to be not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed, along with the connected CM. The Petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to approach the statutory authority, if so advised, for seeking the redressal of their grievance, as projected in this Writ Petition.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE SRINAGAR 24th June, 2025
“TAHIR”