Disposed

Shameema Bano and Others v. Union Territory of J and K (Revenue) and Other

J&K HC11 Sept 2026WP(C)/2256/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached Tehsildar for land demarcation, which remained undecided. High Court disposed of writ, directing Tehsildar to decide application with speaking order and ensure no dispossession during potential demarcation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Tehsildar concerned to decide the application and pass speaking order in accordance with law, ensuring no dispossession if demarcation is conducted.

Shameema Bano and Others Vs Union Territory of J and… — Municipal and Town Planning | J&K HC (2026)

¶1

S. No. 138 Suppl. List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

¶3

WP(C) No. 2256/2026 CM No. 6155/2026

¶4

Shameema Bano and Ors. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

¶5

Through: Ms Asma Rashid, Advocate

¶6

Vs.

¶7

UT of JK and Ors.

¶8

...Respondent(s)

¶9

Through: Ms. Raheela Khan, Assisting Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

11.09.2026

¶14

01. The grievance projected by the petitioners in the present petition is that they have approached the Tehsildar, Budgam, by way of an application for conducting the demarcation, but the same has not been considered and decided by the Tehsildar concerned.

¶15

02. A perusal of the first application dated 1st July, 2026, reveals that petitioners had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam for demarcation of their land which was marked to the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Budgam for action under rules and in turn was marked to the Tehsildar Budgam, as is evident from the Communication dated 3^rd July, 2026. The petitioners have also submitted another application for demarcation of their proprietary land as also for protection against illegal interference over the land as mentioned in the representation dated 23^rd July, 2026.

¶16

03. Notice.

¶17

04. Notice waived by Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned GA, on behalf of official respondents. He submits that petitioners have also filed suit for mandatory injunction against the private respondents for the same survey numbers, as such, it would be appropriate if the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court.

¶18

05. Be that as it may, once the Revenue Authorities are is seized of the application of the petitioner, the same is required to be disposed of in any manner.

¶19

06. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Tehsildar concerned to decide the application and pass speaking order in accordance with law. In the event, the Tehsildar concerned decides to conduct the demarcation, no person shall be dispossessed.

¶20

(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
11.09.2026
“ Shamim Dar ”

Shameema Bano and Others v. Union Territory of J and K (Revenue) and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameema Bano and Others v. Union Territory of J and K (Revenue) and Other

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