Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Basharat Ahmad Mir vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir And ... on 4 February, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Puneet Gupta
Serial No. 02
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM No. 147/2025 in
LPA No. 11/2025
CM No. 146/2025
CM No. 148/2025
Basharat Ahmad Mir
... Appellant(s)
Through: -
Mr Parvaiz Lone, Advocate.
V/s
Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Hon'ble Mr Justice Puneet Gupta, Judge
(ORDER)
04.02.2025
Sanjeev Kumar-J:
01. By medium of CM No. 147/2025, the Applicant, namely,
Basharat Ahmad Mir S/O Late Ali Mohammad Mir R/O Narparistan, Fateh
Kadal, Srinagar is seeking leave of this Court to challenge an Order and
Judgment dated 18th of September, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court (for short "the Writ Court") in WP (C) No. 2107/2024 titled
'Ghulam Mohammad Bhat v. UT of J&K and Ors.'. This application is
belated, therefore, an application for condonation of delay, being CM No.
146/2025, has also been filed by the Applicant.
02. Since, there is a delay of 77 days in filing the application
seeking leave to appeal and the reason given is that the Applicant was not a
party before the Writ Court and, therefore, was not aware of the Judgment
impugned, we find the cause shown plausible and, as such, condone the
delay. CM No. 146/2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.
CM No. 147/2025 in
03. Insofar as the application filed by the Applicant for seeking
leave to file appeal is concerned, we find no merit therein and the same is,
therefore, declined.
04. What is sought to be challenged by way of LPA No. 11/2025 is
an Order passed by the Writ Court dated 18th of September, 2024 disposing
of the Petition of the Writ Petitioner/ Respondent No.6 herein by issuing a
direction to the Revenue Agency concerned to consider the claim of the
Respondent No.6 herein for issuance of revenue extracts as per Rules in his
favour, provided there is no legal impediment.
05. The impugned Order is sought to be challenged by the
Applicant, primarily, on the apprehension that the revenue extracts, if any,
given to the Respondent No.6 by the Revenue Agency may be used by the
Respondent No.6 for executing sale deeds and that would be in violation of
the interim Order dated 3rd of October, 2023 passed by the Court of learned
1st Additional District Judge, Baramulla in a civil Suit for specific
performance of contract titled 'Basharat Ahmad Mir v. Mohammad
Najeeb Goni and Anr.'. True it is that with regard to the subject land,
which is about 63 Kanals falling under different Khasra Numbers, there is a
litigation going on between the Applicant and the Respondent No.6 herein.
Based on some agreement to sell executed by the Respondent No.6, as an
Attorney Holder of Mohammad Najeeb Goni, the Applicant has filed a Suit
for specific performance of contract before the learned 1st Additional
District Judge, Baramulla and, vide Order dated 3rd of October, 2023, the
said Court has directed the parties to maintain the status quo with respect to
06. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, therefore,
submits that the Applicant has reasons to apprehend that the Respondent
No.6 herein, after obtaining the revenue extracts from the Revenue Agency,
may execute sale deeds qua the subject land and in violation of the interim
Order of status quo granted by the civil Court. We find this apprehension of
the Applicant without any basis. The impugned Order, which is sought to
CM No. 147/2025 in
be challenged by way of an appeal before us, only directs the Revenue
Agency to consider the request of Respondent No.6 herein for issuance of
revenue extracts qua the subject land, providing further that there should be
no legal impediment in issuing such revenue extracts. The status quo Order
qua the subject land passed by the civil Court, if it subsists, is itself an
impediment insofar as the execution of the sale deeds pursuant to the
issuance of revenue extracts is concerned. The Applicant has totally
misconstrued the Order passed by the Writ Court and has unnecessarily
approached this Court.
07. Be that as it may, we find no merit in this application. The
same is, as such, dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal, being LPA
No.11/2025, shall also stand dismissed, accordingly.
(Puneet Gupta) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
SRINAGAR
February 4th, 2025
"TAHIR"
i. Whether the Order is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.
