Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9159 (JK)

MOHAMMAD SAFDAR SOFI v. MR. SHAHBAZ MIRZA DC BADGAM

CCP(D)/54/2021 · 2025-04-07

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

S. No. 18 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR (Through Virtual Mode) CCP(D) 54/2021 in[OWP 1677/2018] CM(6033/2023) c/w CCP(D) 53/2021 MOHAMMAD SAFDAR SOFI …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate VS. MR. SHAHBAZ MIRZA ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 07.04.2025 CCP(D) No. 54/2021 1. By this petition, petitioner herein has alleged non-compliance of the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in writ petition bearing OWP No. 1677/2018. The operative portion of the order dated 26.07.2021 is reproduced below: “Nonetheless, in the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties, we dispose of this petition with the direction to the petitioner to ventilate his above grievance before the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam/Collector Land Acquisition, Srinagar (Flood Spill Channel) within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed, the respondent No. 3 shall consider it in accordance with law by a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months.” 2. Compliance report stands filed by the respondents wherein the respondents have placed on record the consideration order dated 30.09.2024. It is stated by the respondents that the representation of the petitioner has been considered in light of the rules and available records and the claim of the petitioner has been found devoid of any merits and has accordingly been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already challenged the consideration order dated 30.09.2024 before this Court by way of appropriate proceedings which are currently pending before this Court. 4. Since the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner rejecting the claim of the petitioner by passing a consideration order, therefore, there remains nothing to proceed further in the contempt petition. Accordingly, the proceedings in the contempt petition are closed. CCP(D) No. 53/2021 5. Learned counsel for the respondents seek and are granted three weeks’ time to file statement of facts/compliance report strictly in conformity with the order dated 29.07.2021. 6. List on 09.05.2025. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 07.04.2025 Aamir Amir Rashid Sofi I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 10.04.2025 12:57