Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Fayaza Ahmad vs Mr Tariq Hussain Ganai Director Estates ... on 23 October, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Sr. No. 13
Regular List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(D) 3/2023 CM(309/2023)
FAYAZA AHMAD ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Advocate
Vs.
MR TARIQ HUSSAIN GANAI DIRECTOR ESTATES DEPARTMENT ...Respondent(s)
JAMMU/SRINAGAR
Through: Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr. AAG &
Mr. Mohammad Younis, Assisting Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE
ORDER
23.10.2024
1. In compliance with the judgment dated 17.08.2022, the requisite
amount stands deposited by the respondents and this way the respondents
claim that they have implemented the judgment and, therefore, are not in
2. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that since the respondents have deposited the amount of Rs.
24,38,100/- which is due to the petitioner, as such in the absence of interim
order passed in the SLP pending before the Supreme Court, there is no
impediment in releasing the said amount.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 13.08.2024 after having heard the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court granted some time to learned
counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions from his client whether she
was willing to furnish the bank guarantee of the amount deposited in order to
facilitate its release pending SLP before the Supreme Court.
5. Today, Mr. Nisar Ahmad Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner
made a statement that the petitioner does not have sufficient funds in the
bank to give the bank guarantee. He, however, submits that in the absence of
any stay by the Supreme Court in the SLP filed against the judgment sought
to be complied with by the respondents, there should be no impediment in
releasing the aforesaid amount.
6. We have considered the matter.
7. In the light of the submissions made at Bar, we are of the considered
opinion, that the ends of justice would be served by providing as under:-
(i) That the amount of Rs. 24,38,100/- deposited in this Court in
compliance with the judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed in
favour of the petitioner shall be released in her favour subject to
submitting an undertaking before the Registrar Judicial that in
case judgment passed by this Court is reversed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the SLP which is pending adjudication, she
shall reimburse the entire amount. She will also indicate in the
undertaking that with a view to discharge the undertaking and
repay the amount in case of the judgment of this Court dated
17.08.2022 is reversed in the SLP, the respondents shall be free
to dispose of by way of auction of the house subject matter of
litigation in this Court so as to recover the aforesaid amount.
(ii) The breach of undertaking to be given by the petitioner shall be
deemed as contempt of this Court and proceedings for such
contempt shall be initiated by the court.
8. The contempt petition is disposed of.
(RAJESH SEKHRI) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
23.10.2024
Aamir
