Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8376 (JK)

PEERZADA JAVID AHMAD SHAH v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND ORS

WP(C)/1757/2025 · 2025-07-25

Rajnesh Oswal

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 98 Suppl.2 Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1757/2025 CM 4595/2025 Peerzada Javid Ahmad Shah …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. T. A. Lone, Advocate. VERSUS Union Territory of J&K an Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 25.07.2025 1. Notice. 2. Notice waived by Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 3. The prayer made by the petitioner is for restraining the respondents from causing any sort of interference or disturbance with the enjoyment of the petitioner qua the propriety land measuring 10 marlas comprising survey No. 3528, situated at Tekipora Lolab, Sogam District Kupwara, and for further commanding the respondents to abstain from preventing the petitioner from repairing the shops existing on the land mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition be disposed of by directing the respondents not to demolish the shops of the petitioner without adopting due course of law, and further, the petitioner be permitted to make representation with the concerned authority for renovation of his shops. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits he is not averse to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents not to demolish the shops of the petitioner, existing on the land measuring 10 marlas comprising survey No. 3528, situated at Tekipora Lolab, Sogam District Kupwara, without following mandate of law. The petitioner is also permitted to submit representation before the concerned authority seeking permission for renovation of his shop and in the event any such representation is submitted, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 7. Till the representation is submitted and decided, the petitioner shall not undertake renovation of the shops in question. 8. Disposed of. (Rajnesh Oswal) Judge SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 Shoaib