Dismissed

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Irrigation and Flood Control) v. Ghulam Ahmad Bhat and Ors.

J&K HC8 Dec 2025LPA/86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State sought condonation of 423 days' delay in filing an LPA against a writ court order directing payment of compensation as per the Collector's final land acquisition award. The bench found the explanation of departmental sanction delays insufficient and found no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, dismissing the application and consequently the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Irrigation and Flood… — Land Acquisition | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Serial no. 35 Regular cause list

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

CM (2311/2025) IN LPA 86/2025 CM (2312/2025)

¶4

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS

¶5

…Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar, GA.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

GHULAM AHMAD BHAT AND ORS

¶9

…Respondent (s)

¶10

Through: Mr. Syed Riyaz Khawar, Advocate.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

08.12.2025

CM 2311/2025

This is an application by the applicants-appellants seeking condonation of delay of 423 days in preferring LPA No. 86/2025 to challenge an order and judgment dated 22^nd December, 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge [“the Writ Court”] in OWP No. 1441/2012 titled “Ghulam Ahmad Bhat vs State of J&K and Ors”.

¶17

The delay of 423 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned on the ground that a lot of time was taken/consumed in completing the departmental process for obtaining the sanction from the Department of Law to file the Appeal. He submits that sanction to file Appeal was granted by the Department of Law on 12^th December, 2024, which was communicated to the counsel concerned on 31^st December, 2024. However, the Appeal was filed by the learned counsel on 18^th April, 2025. There is nothing more said in the application for seeking the condonation of delay.

¶18

For facility of reference we deem it appropriate to reproduce what is contained in Para 3 and 4 of the application for seeking the condonation of delay herein below:

¶19

“3. That delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to the time consumed in completing the departmental process for obtaining the sanction to file this appeal and further compiling of the record. The sanction to file the present appeal was granted by the Law Department vide letter dated 12.12.2024 and in this regard a letter dated 31.12.2024 issued by the Appellant Department whereby the sanction to file the appeal was communicated to the counsel. The total delay in filing of the appeal totals approximately to 312 days

¶20

4. That approval process in fact required consultations, examination of records, and permissions from competent authorities. The same consumed time which has occasioned in delay in filing of the present appeal.”

¶21

We have gone through the application filed by the appellant and do not find the reasons for delay indicated in the application constituting a ‘sufficient cause’ which could have prevented the appellants from filing Appeal in time. We could not even understand as to how the counsel who was requested to file the appeal in terms of communication dated 31^st December, 2024, took four months to file this appeal.

¶22

We are also not inclined to buy the argument that the consultation between the Departments leading to the grant of sanction by the Department of Law took almost a year to fructify.

¶23

Viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the appellants have successfully explained the huge delay of 423 days in filing the appeal.

¶24

We have also gone through the judgment impugned and do not find any legal infirmity therein. The Writ Court has only directed the appellants

¶25

herein to pay the compensation to the interested persons strictly as per the final award passed by the Collector, Land Acquisition.

¶26

Mr. Jehangir Ahmad Dar was fair enough before us to say that the final award has neither been challenged by any authority nor has the same been modified or set aside by any competent authority.

¶27

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed , as a consequence the

¶28

appeal filed shall also stand dismissed .

¶29

(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
08.12.2025
“Shahid Manzoor”

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Irrigation and Flood Control) v. Ghulam Ahmad Bhat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Irrigation and Flood Control) v. Ghulam Ahmad Bhat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishtiaq Ahmad Mir and Ors. Vs Custodian General and Anr. (Custodian Evacuee Property)

Inhabitants of Village Prichoo through Abdul Khaliq Nengroo and Ors. Vs Collector Land Acquisition and Anr. (Hcourt)

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Mala Bashir and Ors.

J and K State Sports Council and Anr. (Youth Services and Sports) Vs Rabinder Singh and Anr.

Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Roads and Buildings (State Government) Vs Haseena Bano

Mst. Hajira and Ors. Vs Union Territory of J and K and Ors. (Revenue)