S. No. 06 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CPOWP 689/2017 in[OWP 199/2017] CM(4691/2024) GHULAM MOHAMMAD KHAWJA …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate Vs MR. M. RAJU COMM-SECY. AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Satinder Singh Kala, AAG CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 19.02.2025 1. The petitioner Ghulam Mohammad Khawja had come to petition this court with writ petition OWP No. 199/2017 purportedly aggrieved of the fact that non-fruit bearing trees worth Rs. 18.513 lacs standing upon his 18 marlas of land under requisition and acquisition was left uncompensated in his favour and despite his repeated endeavours to have the indulgence of the concerned offices/authorities, there was no corresponding response/action from their respective end. 2. The petitioner had named the Deputy Commissioner Baramulla, the Chief Engineer, Kashmir Irrigation and Flood Control Department, the Superintendent Engineer, Hydraulic Circle, District Baramulla, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Division Baramulla, and the Collector Land Acquisition, Irrigation and Flood Control Department Srinagar as party respondents. 3. The writ court came to dispose of the writ petition without adjudication on merits by reserving a liberty to writ petitioner to make an appropriate and fresh application before the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Division Sopore based on the records in support of his claim with regard to compensation and acquisition of his land within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of an order dated 07-06-2017, whereupon the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Division Sopore to accord consideration to the application of the petitioner expeditiously subject to the objections of the respondent department on the validity of the claim of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner, at his end, by virtue of a legal notice dated 19- 08-2017, addressed to the Chief Engineer Kashmir, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, came forward seeking implementation of the direction given in said order dated 07- 06-2017 in the petitioner’s said writ petition OWP No. 119/2017. 5. Being aggrieved of the fact that there was no corresponding compliance/response from the end of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department, be it through its Chief Engineer or Executive Engineer, Sopore, the petitioner came forward with the institution of the present contempt petition filed on 05-10-2017, in which instead of naming the derelict Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control, Baramulla Sopore, as sole respondent, the petitioner came to name six persons as respondents/contemnors as if all were to act as directed in terms of writ court order which is not the position. 6. In fact, right from the very beginning, the petitioner himself was diluting the effect of the writ court direction and that is exhibited from the very fact that this contempt petition has remained pending on the docket of this Court for the last more than seven years in running and if left to the counsel for the petitioner this contempt petition is meant to be pursued by the petitioner which would take petitioner nowhere given the context in which the disposal of the writ petition OWP No. 199/2017 had come to take place. 7. Nevertheless, at the end of the respondents/contemnors, the latest status report dated 29-08-2024 came to be filed along with a consideration order No. I&FCDB/3441-47 dated 13- 08-2024 passed by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Division, Baramulla holding that the claim of the petitioner with respect to 500 number of poplar trees lacks merit and, therefore, the claim based thereupon registered by the petitioner is out rightly rejected. 8. Whether this consideration order is good or bad is not for this Court to evaluate and examine in exercise of contempt jurisdiction. By bearing in mind the direction which was obtaining in the court order dated 07-06-2017 which simply meant for the petitioner to make an application for his claim and, the Executive Engineer Irrigation and Flood Control Division Sopore to consider it on merits which exercise has been done and, as such same brings curtain down for the present contempt petition. 9. In case the petitioner is aggrieved of the outcome in the form of consideration order above referred, the petitioner is well within his right and discretion to resort to an appropriate legal course of action including maintaining a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India if cause permitting and the disposal of the present contempt petition will not come in the way of the petitioner in resorting to said legal course of action. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 19.02.2025 AAMIR Amir Rashid Sofi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 24.02.2025 10:50