Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9714 (JK)

NAHIDA PARVEEN v. STATE OF J AND K AND ORS. (REVENUE DEPARTMENT)

OWP/1881/2018 · 2025-02-11

Rahul Bharti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sr. No.11 Regular List IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP No. 1881/2018 Nahida Parveen …Petitioner(s)/appellant(s) Through: None Vs. State of JK and others ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Satinder Singh, AAG for 1 to 6 Ms. Nadiya Abdullah, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Bikramdeep Singh, Dy. AG for 7 Mr. Mohamad Altaf Khan, Advocate for 8 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE O R D E R 11.02.2025 1. The petitioner came forward with a purported cause of action emanating out of communication No. 1517- 19/TNS/OQ dated 22.09.2018 issued by Tehsildar North, Srinagar addressed to the Naib Tehsildar, Circle, Nandprora. 2. The communication in reference was issued in an application preferred by the respondent No. 8-Abdul Majeed Shah seeking restoration of ingress and egress (road) and for that purpose the Tehsildar North, Srinagar came to direct the Naib Tehsildar, Circle, Nandprora to carried out spot inspection for taking appropriate action that too after providing an opportunity to the relevant parties of being heard. 3. The said communication in no manner meant to cause any prejudice to the petitioner to feel aggrieved to come forward Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 17.02.2025 with present writ petition for seeking quashment of the same as the communication per se did not assert or disturb anybody’s claim qua the subject matter of the dispute obtaining between the petitioner and the respondent No. 8- Abdul Majeed Shah, who was also well within his right to have approached the Tehsildar concerned with any grievance at his disposal and it was equally open to the petitioner to have approached the Tehsildar North, Srinagar, with her counter version so as to contest the application of the respondent No. 8. Instead of doing the same, the petitioner came forward with the present writ petition which right from its inception was misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner as well as of the respondent No. 8-Abdul Majeed Shah qua the subject matter in issue and authorities whomsoever are involved are directed to act purely in accordance with law. (RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 11.02.2025 ARIF Arif Hameed I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 17.02.2025