Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of J&K And Anr on 28 April, 2026
Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr. No. 51
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 1744/2017
Date of Pronouncement:- 28.04.2026
Uploaded on:- 29.04.2026
Deepak Kumar ....Petitioner(s)
Through:- Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate.
V/s
State of J&K and Anr. .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate vice
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner herein has challenged Notice dated 25.10.2017 issued
by respondent No. 2, by virtue of which, he has been directed to
remove the gate without following due course of law.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land
measuring 04 Kanals falling under Khasra No. 567 min of village
Aghar Ballian, Tehsil and District Reasi, which is registered in the
name of his father, where he has constructed a house and is staying
in the said house along with his family. He has also installed a gate
on the entrance of his house. The lane has been constructed by the
Rural Development Department under MGNREGA Scheme,
leading to the house of the petitioner, which is situated on his
OWP No. 1744/2017 Page 1 of 3
proprietary land. The impugned notice has been issued by
respondent No. 2, thereby directing the petitioner to remove the
gate within a period of five days. It is also stated in the impugned
notice that FIR/legal proceedings would be initiated against the
petitioner, if he fails to remove the gate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned notice
issued by respondent No. 2 is illegal, having been passed without
adopting due process of law and without affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, reply stands filed by the respondents, wherein it is
stated that the SHO Reasi was directed to restrain the petitioner
from further encroaching upon the lane and simultaneously, the
Assistant Commissioner Development, Reasi was also apprised.
The revenue authorities were also requested to carry out the
demarcation.
It is further stated in the reply, so filed, that during the site
inspection conducted on 25.10.2017, the petitioner was found
fixing a gate at the site in violation of the J&K Common Land
(Regulation) Act, 1956, as such, he attempted to encroach upon a
public asset created under MGNREGA, thereby obstructing the use
of common passage, which is not permissible under law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would
feel satisfied, if the impugned notice is set aside with a direction to
OWP No. 1744/2017 Page 2 of 3
the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance
with the principles of natural justice.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that she is not
averse to the proposition made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, this writ petition is disposed of, thereby setting
aside the impugned notice, with a direction to respondent No. 2 to
accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner by providing him
an opportunity of being heard before taking any action against the
petitioner. This exercise shall be carried out by the said respondent
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. However, the respondents are directed not to
interfere into the possession of the petitioner over the property in
question till his claim is considered and a fresh order is passed.
8. Disposed of along with connected application, if any.
(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
28.04.2026
Ram Krishan
OWP No. 1744/2017 Page 3 of 3
Ram Krishan
2026.04.29 13:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
