Sr. No. 15 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1889/2021 CM(621/2022) CM(6322/2021) GHULAM MOHI UD DIN PARRAY AND ORS. …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: Mr. H. Furrahi, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG. Mr. Shahrukh Dar, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R 11-02-2025 (Oral) 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners herein claim to be owners in possession of land measuring 20 Kanals and 16 Marlas, covered under Survey Nos. 345, 344, and 346, situated at Wangipora-Wahidpora, Sumbal, Bandipora. The said land is stated to have been under the possession and occupation of the petitioners being Shamilat Deh-Hasbi-Rasad-Mazroowah, alleging that the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, changed the entries in respect of the land in question in the revenue records at the back of the petitioners and altered the nature of the land from Shamilat Deh to Kahcharai land during the settlement operations conducted in the years 2011 and 2012, in violation of the rights of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners claim to have approached the Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, for rectification of the errors in the revenue records in respect of land in question immediately upon coming to know about the same, however, the respondents are stated to have failed to make necessary corrections in the said records. Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 3. Objections to the petition have been filed by respondents wherein the petition is being opposed and it is being stated that the land in question is common land and not the property land of the petitioners. It is further stated that a team constituted by the respondents, headed by Regional Director, Survey and Land Records, Baramulla along with other officers have examined the matter and found that the land had earlier been wrongly recorded before settlement as Shamilat Deh Land, as the land, in fact, is common land/Kahcharai land, which could not be owned or possessed by any individual, and no mutation thereof can be attested in this regard in favour of any party. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Record reveals that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court through WPC No. 1859/2020, seeking directions not only against the official respondents, but also against some private individuals on account of their interference with the land in question which writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court on 05-10-2020 holding that the petition raises complicated and disputed questions of fact, which are otherwise subject matter of a suit filed by Wakf Authorities before the Court of Munsif, Sumbal, while observing further that the decree relied upon by the petitioners allegedly passed in their favour in respect of the land in question, did not confer ownership but only their possession qua the said land and also that the decree being not binding on the respondents-Wakf Authorities in the said petition, as the suit came to be decreed between the petitioners and State Forest Corporation. 5. Record also tends to show that the petitioners have also filed another petition being WPC No. 1859/2020 in connection with the land in question, having sought reliefs therein in the said petition that are essentially same as are prayed for in the instant petition, which writ petition as well came to be disposed of by this Court on 25-11-2020, with a direction to the official respondents/Deputy Commissioner, Bandipora, to treat the writ petition as a representation and consider the same on its merits within a period of four weeks, which direction is stated to have not been complied with by the Deputy Commissioner resulting into filing of the instant petition. Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 6. The petitioners in the instant petition, as has been noticed in the preceding paras and also upon the examination of the record of WP(C) No.1859/2020, have essentially sought the same and similar reliefs as have been prayed in the instant petition, however, the fundamental grievance of the petitioners seemingly is that the official respondents, after undertaking settlement operations in the area, changed the entries in the revenue records and wrongly reflected the land as Kahcharai instead of Shamilat Dafa 5. 7. It is significant to mention here that under and in terms of provisions of Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996, a full-fledged procedure and in-built mechanism is provided for determination of disputes that may arise during the making, revision or preparation of any record or in the course of any enquiry. In presence of the said mechanism provided, being indisputably statutory in nature and character, the petitioners herein cannot be permitted to bypass such statutory mechanism/remedy and approach this Court while invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Thus, under these circumstances, this court is not inclined to exercise discretion in the matter, particularly having regard to the nature of dispute being based on complicated questions of facts, in view of a motion laid by applicants in CM No. 621/2022, wherein the said applicants, villagers of village Wangipora-Wahidpora, Sumbal, Bandipora, contend that the land in question is Kahcharai land belonging to the entire village for grazing purposes disputing the claim of the petitioners herein over the said land 9. Viewed thus, the petition, for the aforesaid reasons, is dismissed along with all connected applications. Interim direction, if any passed, shall stand vacated. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 11-02-2025 Junaid Junaid Ayoub I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document