Dalip Kumar vs Vinay Kumar Sub Div. Magistrate
2023 Latest Caselaw 33 j&K

                                                                        Sr.No. 28


               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT JAMMU

                                                    CCP(S) No. 197/2022

Dalip Kumar                                                    ....Petitioner/Appellant(s)

                    Through :- Mr. Dalip Kumar, Petitioner in person.

         V/s

Vinay Kumar Sub Div. Magistrate                                        ....Respondent(s)
Vijaypur Samba and Anr.

                    Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with
                               Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

30.01.2023.

In compliance to judgment dated 08.03.2022, Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Vijaypur has filed a compliance report in which it is submitted that

pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the Tehsildar-Ramgarh was

directed to go on spot and implement the judgment of this Court in letter and

spirit. On 11.02.2022, the Tehsildar-Ramgarh along with field staff and police

officials visited the spot in the presence of the petitioner and other co-sharers in

compliance to the directions passed, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Vijaypur and

implemented the judgment of this Court in letter and spirit.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate-Vijaypur and Mr.

Farooq Hussain, Tehsildar-Ramgarh, who are present in person, submitted that

the illegal possession of Mr. Madhu Param Hans has been removed on spot and

the possession of the subject land handed over to the petitioner and his co-

sharers. The dispute now is between the co-sharers inter se and for which the

petitioner needs to explore different remedies.

Having heard Mr. Dalip Kumar, petitioner in person, Mr. Vinay

Kumar, SDM-Vijaypur and Mr. Farooq Hussain, Tehsildar-Ramgarh , this Court

is of the view that the judgment passed by this Court is complied with. In so far

as the dispute between the co-sharers is concerned, the remedy of the petitioner

lies somewhere else. Needless to say that in case of trespass by anybody

including the agents of Madhu Param Hans, the petitioner and his co-sharers are

entitled to seek remedies available in law. However, no case for proceedings

against the respondents for contempt of court is made out.

The instant contempt petition is dismissed with a liberty to the

petitioner to avail of appropriate remedies available in law.

(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge

Jammu:

30.01.2023.

Neha-1