ATIF IMTIAZ AND OTHERS TH THEIR FATHER IMTIAZ AHMAD KHATA AND OTHERS v. UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS
WP(C)/593/2026 · 2026-04-15
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 650 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 650 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WP (C) No. 593/2026
Atif Imtiaz and others .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Mudasir Bin Hassan, Advocate
v/s UT of J&K and Others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL) 15.04.2026
1. By this petition, the petitioners herein are seeking a direction upon the respondents to perform their statutory duty by deciding the application dated 12.04.2024 and to rectify the error which had been crept in because of non-submission of the permanent residence certificate of the father of the petitioners or rejecting the domicile certificate of the petitioners by providing them the opportunity to re- submit the application form for re-issuance of the domicile certificates.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein through their natural guardian and father are seeking redressal of their grievance arising out of an inadvertent error in their domicile certificates issued in the year 2022 by the Tehsildar, Balakote. Due to an inadvertent omission, the Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) of the father was not uploaded which resulted in issuance of the domicile certificates under an incorrect clause. Sr. No. 18
2
3. After noticing the error the father of the petitioners approached the authorities in the year 2022 seeking rectification through a formal application dated 12.04.2024 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mendhar, however, no decision has been taken on the application of the petitioners till date
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners would feel satisfied, if the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider and decide the application of the petitioners within a reasonable period of time.
5. Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate is not averse to the proposition being made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent nos. 3 and 4 to consider the application dated 12.04.2024 filed by petitioners’ father within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order by passing speaking orders thereon.
7.
Disposed of.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge
JAMMU 15.04.2026 Manik Whether this order is speaking: Yes/No Whether this order is reportable: Yes/No