Disposed¶20

Bashir Ahmed v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

J&K HC7 Oct 2024WP(C)/30/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

J&K and Ladakh High Court at Jammu; WP(C) No. 30/2024; Bashir Ahmed v. U.T. of J&K; agrarian reforms appeal; interim status quo order dated 03.10.2022; stay order dated 12.01.2024; OWP No. 1927/2017 directions dated 22.11.2017; delay in filing appeal; time-bound disposal within three months; Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu; protection of petitioner's agriculture pursuits; Justice Rajnesh Oswal; order dated 07.10.2024; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 2 (Additional Deputy Commissioner with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu) directed to decide the appeal within three months; parties to maintain status quo until the appeal is decided, without affecting the petitioner's agriculture pursuits. ¶20

Bashir Ahmed Vs U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others — J&K HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority (respondent No. 2) should be directed to decide the pending appeal within a stipulated period, the petitioner contending that the appeal could not proceed without adjudication of the delay in its filing.

¶15

Court's answer

The Court held that there is substance in the petitioner's contention that the matter had not been taken to its logical conclusion and that the appellate authority could not proceed without adjudicating the delay in filing the appeal.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu, respondent No. 2, to decide the appeal within three months.

¶20

Key takeaways

Until the appeal is decided, the parties are to maintain status quo, which will not affect the agriculture pursuits undertaken by the petitioner.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bashir Ahmed v. U.T. of J&K and others, WP(C) No. 30/2024 (High Court of J&K and Ladakh at Jammu, Rajnesh Oswal, J., order dated 07.10.2024): Writ petition impugning the appellate authority's interim order dated 03.10.2022 directing maintenance of status quo was disposed of by directing the Additional Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu (respondent No. 2) to decide the pending appeal within three months. Until decision, parties to maintain status quo, which will not affect the agriculture pursuits undertaken by the petitioner. The Court found substance in the contention that the appellate authority could not proceed without adjudicating the delay in filing the appeal, and that its decision must conform to this Court's directions in OWP No. 1927/2017 dated 22.11.2017.

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

WP(C) No. 30/2024

¶4

Bashir Ahmed

¶5

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.

¶7

¶8

U. T. of J&K and others .…. Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Adv. vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr .AAG

¶10

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶11

ORDER 07.10.2024

¶12

ORAL:

¶13

Interim order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the appellate authority, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby the contesting parties were directed to maintain status quo, has been impugned by the petitioner through the medium of instant writ petition.

¶14

This Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 while staying the operation of order dated 03.10.2022 had provided that this order will not preclude the appellate authority to decide the main appeal on merits after hearing all the parties and in conformity with the directions passed by this Court in OWP No. 1927/2017 dated 22.11.2017.

¶15

Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has not been taken to its logical conclusion till date. He further submits that without adjudicating the issue in respect of delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority cannot proceed ahead to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the private respondents.

¶16

¶17

WP(C) No. 30/2024

¶18

None has appeared on behalf of the private respondents to oppose the instant petition.

¶19

There is substance in the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Additional Deputy Commissioner(with powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Jammu respondent No. 2 herein to decide the appeal within a period of three months.

¶21

Till such appeal is decided, parties are directed to maintain status quo, however, it will not affect the agriculture pursuits undertaken by the

¶22

petitioner.

¶23

Disposed of.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE

¶24

Jammu 07.10.2024 Rakesh

¶25

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

¶26

Rakesh Kumar 2024.09.20 08:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Bashir Ahmed v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashir Ahmed v. U T of J and K Th Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samina Yousuf Vs State Th.Secy.Ssb.and Ors.

Gurjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State Th.Chairman Ssrb.and Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs State Th.P.W.D.RandB and Ors.

Mohd Shabir and Others Vs Ut of J and K Th Ssp Poonch and Another

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Khadam Hussain and Ors.

Bhushan Lal Dhar and Another Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma Director School Education Jammu