Mohammad Akber Bhat And Anr vs Union Territory Of Jk And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1093 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Mohammad Akber Bhat And Anr vs Union Territory Of Jk And Others on 24 February, 2026

Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

                                                                         S. no. 173
                                                                         Supp list
            HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                             AT SRINAGAR
                                WP (C) no. 345/2026
                                 CM No. 856/2026

Mohammad Akber Bhat and Anr.
                                                               .... Petitioner(s)
                             Through:    Mr Bilal Ahmad Malla, Advocate

                                         v.
Union Territory of JK and others
                                                               ... Respondent(s)
                             Through:
CORAM:
         Hon'ble Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, Judge

                                     ORDER

24.02.2026

1. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31 st July,

2025 passed by the Aditional Deputy Commissioner, Kulgam with powers

of Aggrarian Reforms Commissioner, in an appeal titled Ab. Rehman Bhat

& Ors v. Mohd. Akbar Bhat & anr, on file No. LRA/114/2019, whereby

mutation No. 449 dated 8th March, 1999 with respect to land measuring 10

kanals 10 marlas falling under Survey Nos. 126, 131 and 301 situated at

village Yamrach Tehsil Yaripora attested under Section 12 of the Jammu &

Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, has been set-aside and the Teshildar,

Yaripora has been directed to attest fresh mutation in accordance with law in

favor of the legal heirs of the Kareem Bhat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been

passed by the respondent no. 2 in an appeal that was preferred by the

respondents after a delay of about 20 years that too without an application

seeking condonation of delay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is not in

consonance with law governing the field.

4. Notice. Notice in CM also. In the meanwhile, the parties are directed to

maintain statusquo in respect of the property in dispute till next date of

hearing before the Bench.

5. Alteration, modification, vacation on motion.

(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge Srinagar 24.02.2026 Amjad Lone, Joint Registrar-cum-Secretary