Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2638 (JK)

URFEE JAN v. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE)

WP(C)/1841/2026 · 2026-08-05

Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Serial No. 138 Supplementary Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 1841/2026 CM(4974/2026) URFEE JAN …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Z.A Qureshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE) ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Mr. Haris Khan, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE. ORDER 05.08.2026 1. Petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 12 Marlas of land falling under Khasra No. 59 min, Khewat No. 67 situated in Revenue Estate Rawalpora, Tehsil Khas, within Srinagar Municipality, which the petitioner had purchased pursuant to the sale deed executed on 05.09.2012 and later on the petitioner constructed two storeyed tin roofed house with attic over the said land. It is stated that the petitioner applied to the respondents for issuance of the revenue extracts, which have been rejected by the respondents in terms of the Circular No. 05-JK(Rev) of 2025 dated 04.04.2025. 2. Aggrieved of the rejection, the petitioner has approached this court with the petition in hand, seeking quashing of the impugned communication as also the Circular dated 04.04.2025. The petitioner has also prayed that respondents be directed to issue necessary revenue extracts/Fard in favour of the petitioner for the aforementioned land. 3. It appears that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the aforementioned land after the same has been purchased by her through a registered sale deed. The petitioner, now, wanted to alienate her property and, accordingly, applied on 01.07.2025 to the Revenue Department through online mode for issuance of Fard in terms of application No. 03941407202522205480 and also deposited the requisite fee of Rs. 1000/- . However, the respondents, to the dismay of the petitioner, have rejected the issuance of the revenue extracts/fard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s application originates from the Circular dated 04.04.2025, issued by the respondents, by virtue of which, all the Deputy Commissioners were directed to immediately intervene and ensure recreation of missing/dilapidated Mussavis within two months, failing which, land alienation in such Revenue villages be stopped forthwith. 5. Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG has submitted that vide communication dated 27.07.2026, all the Deputy Commissioners have been directed to follow the standing order and to desist from using the circular dated 04.04.2025 as an alibi for not providing lawful services to the citizens and in line with the standing orders, as well as in terms of communication dated 08.04.2026, whereby, the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, has requested the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, to review the directions issued vide Circular dated 04.04.2025 and to authorize the concerned Deputy Commissioners to issue Fard in all cases where the Mussavies are dilapidated, on the basis of the available records and field books, as was the practice in the past. Learned Sr. AAG also submits that this Court has already disposed of WP(C) No. 1779/2026, titled Niyaz Ahmad Jan v. UT of J&K & Ors., on the basis of the aforesaid communications. 6. In view of above, there is no reason available with the respondents now to refuse the requisite revenue extract/Fard in favour of the petitioner for the land in question, enabling her to alienate the same through the medium of a gift deed or any other mode, being a lawful owner of the same. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to issue the requisite Fard in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. Insofar as the prayer for quashing Circular dated 04.04.2025 is concerned, the same stands addressed by the communication dated 27.07.2026, as such, no further direction in that regard is required to be passed by this Court. 8. Disposed of in the manner indicated above, along with connected application(s). (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 05.08.2026 “Adil Ismail”