Wednesday, 20, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Hira Lal Abrol And Ors vs J & K Special Tribunal And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1481 J&K

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1481 J&K
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Hira Lal Abrol And Ors vs J & K Special Tribunal And Ors on 21 May, 2025

Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
                                                                            Sr. No. 27

        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU

OWP No. 1275/2016

Hira Lal Abrol and Ors.                                  .....Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                                  Through :- Mr. Karman S. Johal, Advocate

                          v/s
J & K Special Tribunal and Ors.                                     .....Respondent(s)

                                  Through :- Ms. Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice
                                             Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for R-1, 3 to
                                             9
                                             Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

                                    ORDER

21.05.2025

1 By this petition, the petitioners herein have challenged order dated

20.05.2016 passed by the J&K Special Tribunal and Ors. (herein referred to as

the 'Tribunal') in file No. STJ/382/2015,whereby the application seeking

restoration of an appeal titled 'Pritam Singh vs Hira Lal and others, which was

dismissed in default on 11.03.2013, was allowed.

2 It is stated that the petitioner no. 1, along with the predecessor-in-

interest of the petitioner nos. 2 & 3, Shri Sudhir Khorana, were vested with

ownership rights over the State land under the Roshni Scheme in their capacity

as occupants. The vesting of ownership rights is in respect of a piece of land

measuring 25 kanals, categorized as an educational institution, bearing Khasra

No. 615 min, situated at Village Salmeri, Tehsil and District Samba. It is further

stated that Shri Sudhir Khorana passed away on 17.12.2013, and after his

demise, petitioner no. 2 & 3 were vested with the ownership rights, subject to

the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- as determined by the Committee. In this regard,

the petitioners have already deposited an amount of Rs. 18,75,000/- against

proper receipt.

3 The aforesaid order came to be challenged by Mr. Pritam Singh, the

predecessor-in-interest of respondent no. 2, on 05.06.2008, by way of an appeal.

However, the said appeal was dismissed for non prosecution on 11.03.2013.

After dismissal of the appeal on 11.03.2013, Mr. Pritam Singh passed away on

31.10.2014, and no application seeking restoration of the appeal was filed during

his lifetime. Subsequently, on 28.12.2015, the son of Mr. Pritam Singh,

respondent No.2 herein, filed an application seeking restoration of the appeal.

4 The Tribunal issued notice to petitioner no. 1 and the predecessor-

in-interest of petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Since Sh. Sudhir Khorana had already

passed away on 17.12.2013, as such notice could be served upon him. It is stated

that on 20.05.2016, the Tribunal allowed the application of respondent no. 2 on

the ground that the non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not

bar the Tribunal from exercising its discretion to condone the delay.

Accordingly, the case was restored to its original number.

5 The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated

20.05.2016 and have challenged the same on numerous grounds.

6 However, it is stated by the learned counsel representing

respondent no. 2 i.e. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate, that in light of the judgment

dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Division Bench in PIL No. 2011 titled 'Prof.

S.K. Bhalla Vs. State of J & K and Ors.', wherein the J & K Lands (Vesting of

Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 (commonly known as the Roshni Act) has

been declared null and void and the mutations attested under the said Act have

been set aside, respondent No. 2 does not wish to pursue the litigation which

was restored before the Tribunal pursuant to the impugned order.

7 Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned counsel, further states that since the

mutations have already been set aside in terms of the judgment(Supra), as such

he does not want to press the appeal/revision pending before the Tribunal.

8 In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent

No.2, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. Accordingly,

the same is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is

granted to learned counsel for the petitioners to agitate the matter afresh, if any

cause of action still survives.

(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge JAMMU 21.05.2025 Manik

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter