Dismissed

Iram Mushtaq v. Mr. Asgar Hussain Samoon (Div. Comm. Kmr/Gad)

J&K HC11 Feb 2021CPOWP/379/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dropped contempt proceedings where respondents submitted that they complied with a prior order by considering a land representation and finding it without merit. The Court held no case for continuation as the direction was executed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the consideration order separately if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped and judgment disposed of; no relief granted to petitioner in these proceedings.

Iram Mushtaq Vs Mr. Asgar Hussain Samoon (Div. Comm. Kmr/Gad) — Property and Title | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Item No.218 After Notice

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CPOWP No.379/2013

¶4

Iram Mushtaq …Petitioner(s)

¶5

Through: Mr. R. A. Bhat, Advocate. Vs.

¶6

Mr. Asgar Hussain Samoon & ors. …Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Saba Gulzar, Asstt. Counsel vice Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG.

¶7

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge

¶8

(ORDER)(ORAL)

¶9

11.02.2021

¶10

In the instant petition, petitioner has complained about the non-compliance of order dated 03.06.2013 passed by this Court in OWP No.32/2013.

¶11

Vide the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by directing Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks.

¶12

In the representation, petitioner had sought demarcation of land measuring 04 kanals falling under

¶13

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.15 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

2 CPOWP No.379/2014

¶15

Khasra No.167-min situated at Gongo Tehsil & District Budgam and eviction of encroachers from Kahcharai land.

¶16

The respondents have filed statement of facts, to which a response has also been field by the petitioners

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

As already noted, the direction was issued by this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner and take a decision thereon. Vide the representation filed by the petitioner, demarcation of aforesaid land and eviction of encroachers from the Kahcharai land was sought.

¶19

In the statement of facts filed by the respondents, it has been averred that pursuant to the direction of this Court, the representation of the petitioner was considered and demarcation of the land falling under Survey No.167 (proprietary) and 285(Kahcharai) was conducted. It was found during demarcation that the petitioner is in illegal possession of land measuring 11 marlas under survey No.285-min and she was evicted and the land was made free for the villagers for its use as kahcharai. Regarding land measuring 4 kanals falling under survey No.167, the statement of facts goes on to submit that the same was measured in presence of the parties and deficiency of 11

¶20

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.15 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

3 CPOWP No.379/2014

¶22

marlas of land was found which was handed over to the petitioner accordingly.

¶23

In the response filed by the petitioner, it has been contended that no notice was given to the petitioner before undertaking demarcation. It is further contended that no land has been handed over to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no demarcation has actually taken place and even today kahcharai land measuring more than 30 kanals is under the possession of private respondents.

¶24

Another compliance report has been filed by the respondents on 02.08.2019, in which it has been submitted that no encroachment by way of any construction etc. has taken place on kahcharai land which the petitioner alleges. The report goes on to submit that the application filed by the petitioner was found to be without merit. An order issued by Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Budgam, on 25.07.2019, disposing of representation of the petitioner, is annexed with the compliance report, according to which the representation filed by the petitioner was found to be without any merit.

¶25

Petitioner has filed a fresh response to the compliance report reiterating her earlier contentions and it has also been contended that the order dated 25.07.2019 has been

¶26

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT2021.02.15 14:29 issued by Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Budgam, and I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

4 CPOWP No.379/2014

¶28

not by the Deputy Commissioner, who, as per the directions of the Court, was to comply the said direction.

¶29

From the aforesaid contentions and counter claims of the parties, it appears that disputed questions of fact have come to the fore. The respondents claim that they have complied with the Court direction and the representation of the petitioner has been found to be devoid of merit whereas petitioner claims otherwise.

¶30

The scope of these contempt proceedings is not to go into these disputed claims of the parties. The Court has to ensure that its direction is complied with by the respondents in its letter and spirit. The direction of this Court, in the instant case, was to consider the representation of the petitioner which the respondents have done and found the same to be without any merit. If petitioner has any grievance against the consideration order, it is open to her to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings.

¶31

So far as the contention of petitioner that the order of consideration has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Budgam, and not by the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam, the same is without any merit for the reason that Assistant Commissioner (Revenue),

¶32

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT2021.02.15 14:29 Budgam, has acted under the directions of Deputy I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

5 CPOWP No.379/2014

¶34

Commissioner, Budgam, while passing the order in question.

¶35

In view of above, no case is made out for continuing these contempt proceedings and, accordingly, the same are dropped and contempt petition is disposed of.

¶36

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge

¶37

Srinagar 11.02.2021 “Bhat Altaf, PS”

¶38

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

¶39

MOHAMMAD ALTAF BHAT 2021.02.15 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Iram Mushtaq v. Mr. Asgar Hussain Samoon (Div. Comm. Kmr/Gad)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iram Mushtaq v. Mr. Asgar Hussain Samoon (Div. Comm. Kmr/Gad)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tej Krishan Koul and Another Vs Alok Sharma Chief Manager S.B.I

Hakim Din Barrah and Others Vs Bashir Ahmad Malik and Others

Ab. Rasheed Wagay Vs Shri Vinod Koul (Comm/Sectt. Revenue Dep

Bilal Ahmed Deva Vs Commissioner Secretary and Ors. (Revenue Department)

Ghulam Mohammad Reshi Vs J and K Special Tribunal and Ors.

Zaffar Ahmad Wani Vs Vinod Kaul (Comm/Sectt. Revenue Deptt.)