S. No. 89 Supplementary Cause List HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1557/2024 CM No. 1786/2025 CM No. 4205/2024 CM No. 4206/2024 Zamindaran Committee through its President Shabir Ahmad Sofi …Appellant(s),Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri, Advocate with Ms. Fiza, Advocate. Vs. Union of India And Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. T. M. Shamsi, DSGI with Ms. Shagufta Maqbool, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI JUDGE ORDER 03.04.2025 1. Mr. T. M. Shamsi, learned DSGI, representing respondents No. 1 to 4 and 7 submits that an exercise has been set afoot under the regime of J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 and the Rules thereunder which is intended for the acquisition of the requisitioned land with respect to which a representative writ petition was filed in the year 1998 bearing OWP No. 292 of 1998 which resulted in its disposal on 22.12.2003 and now the second writ petition, the present one, for the same very purpose that too in a representative capacity, came to be instituted. Therefore, the exercise which has been set on roll for acquisition of the requisitioned property/ies is going to attain its logical end and purpose within a reasonable period of time given the fact that multi- layered formalities under the J&K Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1968 are required to be rigorously followed leaving no scope for any default at the end not only of the acquisition authorities but also at the end of the Union of India as well. 2. In the light of this statement by Mr. Shamsi, this Court sees that this writ petition shall remain no longer on the docket of this court as a fair disposal can be given to this writ petition by directing all the respondents concerned to carry forward the exercise for acquisition of the requisitioned property/ies to its logical end within a reasonable period of time by bearing in mind the fact that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 14.12.2009 had setup a timeline for doing the exercise which has expired long back without the desired exercise having been taken to its logical end and closure. 3. This Court leaves the sense of reasonable time to the better discretion of the concerned respondents, however, in case if any land owner/holder of the requisitioned property would reckon that the concerned respondents are indulging in dilatory tactics and/or timewasting despite disposal of this writ petition by extending reasonable time at the disposal of the respondents, then such an aggrieved land owner/holder would be well within his/her right to come forward individually or jointly with an independent writ petition to seek the relief for which present writ petition came to be filed without reference to any individual aggrieved owner/holder but in a representative capacity 4. Disposed of in above terms, along with connected CM(s). (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.04.2025. Shoaib