Serial No. 106 Supplementary Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1505/2026 CM(3940/2026) GHULAM RASOOL MIR AND OTHERS …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Fayaz Ahmad Lone, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA Mr. Danish Majid Dar, Advocate for R- 13 to 17 CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. ORDER 04.07.2026 1. By this petition, petitioners herein have challenged order dated 20.06.2026 passed by respondent No. 12, whereby, respondent No. 13 has been permitted to extract soil from the Zaffron Karewas of Chandhara, Pulwama. It is stated that the said order has prejudicially affected the petitioners’ rights, as no consent was obtained from them despite their owning land adjacent to the land from which the extraction, in terms of the impugned order, is being carried out.. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the extraction of soil has been permitted from Survey Nos. 2409 and 2411, which are co-owned by Petitioner Nos. 6 to 11. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 13 to 17 has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that Rule 85 of SRO 105 provides a statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Director, Geology and Mining. It is, therefore, contended that the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. For the sake of convenience, Rule 85 of SRO 105 is reproduced herein below:: 85. Appeal: (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by any officer in-charge sub-ordinate to Director shall have the right of appeal to the Director. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under sub-rule (1) or any other order passed by the Director under these rules shall have the right of appeal to the Government. (3) The order passed by the Government in appeal shall be final. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein would feel satisfied in case the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No. 12, District Mineral Officer (DMO), Pulwama, to monitor and supervise the extraction of soil in terms of the impugned order dated 20.06.2026, so that the respondent No. 13 may not extract more soil than what is permitted in terms of the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents are not averse to the preposition made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Be that as it may, the instant petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at the threshold thereby directing respondent No. 12 to monitor and supervise the extraction of soil carried out by respondent No. 13, so that respondent No. 13 may not extract soil more than what is permissible in terms of the impugned order dated 20.06.2026 7. Disposed of. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 04.07.2026 “Adil Ismail”