Sr. No.01 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR OWP No.1244/2017 Mohammad Rafiq Bhat …Petitioner(s)/Appellants. Through: Ms. Rehana Fayaz, Advocate. Vs. State of J and K and others. ….Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Jahangir Ahmad Dar, GA. CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE O R D E R 14.05.2025 01. Petitioner (Mohammad Rafiq Bhat) had even earlier approached this Court vide writ petition (OWP No.278/2008). In brief, the case set out therein was that the petitioner was allotted a space by the Srinagar Municipality in the year 1994, upon which he had constructed a wooden kiosk with permission of the Srinagar Municipality to run a tea stall. The petitioner had been paying rent to the Srinagar Municipality. He was served with a notice under Section 6-A of the Jammu and Kashmir Valley Embankment Act, to which he had submitted a response. But even though no order was passed by the authorities yet his tea stall was demolished on November 8, 2006. For that was the only source of income of the petitioner, he approached Srinagar Municipal Corporation as also the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department to rehabilitate the petitioner. But to no avail. Faced with that, he filed the writ petition, referred to above, and prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for his rehabilitation by providing a space at a convenient place to set up his business afresh. 02. The said petition was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on November 11, 2015 on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the authorities be directed to consider his claim and pass necessary orders. 03. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated February 23, 2016, Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Division, Srinagar, upon due consideration of the matter, concluded that the petitioner had illegally and unlawfully set up an encroachment upon the slope of River Jehlum in violation of the Jammu and Kashmir Valley Embankment Act. So much so even the SMC Committee lacked any right, power and authority to allot the subject space to the petitioner. For the embankment of River Jehlum was exclusively under the management and control of Irrigation and Flood Control Division, Srinagar. As regards rehabilitation of the petitioner, it is observed for the said respondent was neither a plot allotting/ rehabilitating authority, the representation of the petition in this regard was wholly misconceived and not maintainable. 04. Upon being pointedly asked as to how the impugned order, referred to above, was erroneous, unsustainable or in violation of any provision of law, learned counsel for the petitioner pleads silence. However, she submits that despite repeated representations petitioner’s claim for rehabilitation in terms of order dated November 23, 2015, passed by this Court has still not been addressed by the Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation. However, having argued the matter at some length she submits that in terms of the Government policy, the petitioner is required to be rehabilitated, he would be satisfied if the petition is disposed of with a direction to Commissioner, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a specified time. 05. In response, learned counsel for the Srinagar Municipal Corporation, submits that in the event any such representation, as indicated above, is pending consideration before the authorities, the same shall be considered and dealt with in accordance with law or in any event the necessary orders in this regard would be passed without any further loss of time after affording hearing to the petitioner. An advance intimation/ notice would be issued to him 06. That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that let the petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 07. In the wake of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel for the Corporation. 08. Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute any expression of opinion on merits of the case for either party. For respondent no.3 would examine the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Srinagar 14.05.2025 Abdul Qayoom, Secy.