ORDER : JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. 1. Through the medium of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, herein who claim to be successors of the original land holders of village Batwara, Srinagar, seek implementation of the Final Award dated 20 th Maghar Svt. 1981 (corresponding to 24.12.1924) read with the formal note dated 23.12.1924, whereby land measuring 650 Kanals, situated at village Rakhi Parigam, Tehsil, Pulwama, was directed to be allotted in favour of the predecessors of the petitioners in lieu of their proprietary land, measuring 636 Kanals and 18 Marlas, situated at village Batwara, Srinagar, which had been acquired for the establishment of the Cantonment at Sonawar. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that the proprietary land of their ancestors was acquired by the then Government in the year 1924 for establishment of the Cantonment at Badami Bagh/Sonawar, Srinagar and that in terms of the Award dated 24.12.1924, the land losers were to be rehabilitated by allotment of alternative land measuring 650 Kanals at village Rakhi Parigam, Tehsil Pulwama. According to the petitioners, although the acquisition of their land was acted upon and possession thereof was taken by the authorities, however, the obligation flowing therefrom from the said Award to confer ownership rights and deliver possession of the land at Rakhi Parigam has not been implemented till date. It has been further asserted that instead of conferring ownership rights in favour of the petitioners, the respondents initially reflected them as tenants in the revenue records and subsequently, expunged those entries, thereby depriving the petitioners of both ownership as well as possession of the land which was to be allotted in exchange of the land acquired from their predecessors. 3. 3. It has also been pleaded that the issue concerning the land losers whose land had been acquired under the same Award of 1924, has already been considered by this Court in WP(C) No. 3395/2023 titled “Ali Mohammad Mir and others v. Union Territory of J&K and others”, and in terms of judgment and order dated 25.04.2025, and while quashing the order impugned therein passed by the Deputy Commissioner Srinagar, directed the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the claims of the petitioners therein and other claimants in light of the relevant revenue records including the Final Award dated 24.12.1924, and thereafter determine the rightful successors of the original allottees and ensure conferment of ownership rights and handing over of possession of the land to the legitimate claimants. 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid judgment dated 25.04.2025 was subsequently followed by order dated 13.11.2025, in terms whereof the process contemplated in the judgment has already been set into motion and a committee has been constituted to undertake the requisite exercise. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are similarly situated to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3395/2023, as their claim also emanates from the same Award dated 24.12.1924. It is submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the competent authority to consider their claim as well in the light of the directions already issued by this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 25.04.2025. 6. When the matter was taken up for consideration, Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, present on the asking of the Court, appeared on behalf of the respondents and upon being apprised of the nature of the controversy involved in the present petition and the limited relief sought by the petitioners, submitted that the respondents are not averse to the disposal of the petition on the similar lines as have been passed in WP ( C ) No. 3395/2023 vide orders dated 24.04.2025 and 13.11.2025. 7. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy raised in the present petition arises out of the same land acquisition proceedings culminating in the passing of Award dated 24.12.1924 which has already been subject matter of adjudication by this Court in WP(C) No. 3395/2023 supra. In the said case, this Court has already issued comprehensive directions to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir to undertake an exercise of identifying the rightful successors of the original land holders and to ensure conferment of ownership rights and delivery of possession of the allotted land in accordance with law and since the claim projected by the petitioners in the present writ petition is also founded upon the same Award and pertains to similarly placed land holders, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the claim of the petitioners is also examined by the respondents within the framework of the directions already issued by this Court in the aforesaid WP ( C ) No. 3395/2023. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioners, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir shall accord consideration to the claim of the petitioners in relation to the land measuring 650 Kanals situated at village Rakhi Parigam, Tehsil Pulwama, which is claimed to have been allotted in lieu of the land acquired from the inhabitants of village Batwara under the Final Award dated 24.12.1924. ii. While doing so, the Divisional Commissioner shall examine the case of the petitioners in tune with and in the light of the directions issued by this Court in judgment dated 25.04.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 3395/2023 titled Ali Mohammad Mir and others v. Union Territory of J&K and others, read with order dated 13.11.2025. iii. The Divisional Commissioner shall take into consideration the relevant revenue records, the Award dated 24.12.1924 and the claims of the petitioners as successors of the original land holders and thereafter take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the Divisional Commissioner. 9. iv. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is made available to the Divisional Commissioner. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims raised by the petitioners and the competent authority shall take an independent decision strictly in accordance with law. 10. Disposed of along with all connected applications, if any.