Advertisement Area
Advertisement Area

― Advertisement ―

Internship Experience @ Lawchakra, Patna

Name Daman Name of the College CT Institute of Law, Punjab and Jalandhar City Name of the Organisation Lawchakra, Address: West Bailey Road, Arya Samaj Road, SK Puram...
HomeGhulam Mohammad Beigh vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 17...

Ghulam Mohammad Beigh vs Union Territory Of J&K And Ors on 17 February, 2026

17.02.2026
Facts;

1. Ownership of land measuring 04 kanals falling under Survey No.395

min in Estate Sonamarg, Tehsil Kangan, District Ganderbal, passed unto the

petitioner herein pursuant to the attestation of mutation No.602 dated

05.09.1986 and mutation No.605 dated 02.12.1986 respectively, attested by

respondent 10 herein, under Sections 4 and 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir

Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 (for short ‘the Act of 1976) and feeling aggrieved

of the said mutations, private respondents 3 to 9 herein claiming to be the

successors of the original owners of the said land namely Abdul Ahad Raina,

Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Raina and Ghulam Mohammad Raina, preferred an

appeal before Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner respondent 2 herein, on

03.01.2022, accompanied with an application for condonation of delay

seeking condonation of delay in preferring the said appeal, wherein the said

condonation of delay application came to be allowed on 15.12.2022 by the

respondent 2, aggrieved of the which order dated 15.12.2022, the petitioner

herein preferred WP(C) No.05/2023 before this Court, which WP(C)

however, came to be withdrawn on 20.01.2023 owing to the disposal of the

main appeal in the meantime by respondent 2 on 10.01.2023, whereafter the

petitioner herein preferred WP(C) No.69/2023 challenging both the orders

being order dated 15.12.2022 passed in the condonation of delay application

as also the order dated 10.01.2023 passed in the main appeal and the said

WP(C) 69/2023 came to be disposed of on 10.07.2023 by this Court directing

the respondent 2 to consider and decide the application for condonation of

delay afresh on merits by passing a speaking/ reasoned order and to make an

endeavor to dispose of the matter within a period of two months positively,

whereafter the respondent 2 on 10.10.2023 decided the condonation of delay

application and allowed the same, aggrieved whereof the petitioner herein

preferred WP(C) No.2811/2023 before this Court, which petition however,

came to be dismissed on 03.11.2023, upholding the said order dated

10.10.2023 passed by respondent 2 and aggrieved of the dismissal of the said

WP(C) 2811/2023, the petitioner herein preferred LPA No. 248/2023, which

LPA came to be disposed of on 23.10.2024 on the premise that since the

petitioner herein (being the appellant before the LPA Bench) had challenged

the order passed in the main appeal in a separate writ petition i.e. WP(C)

No.1327/2024 (being present petition) and that as such, the

appellant/petitioner herein shall be free to raise the question with regard to the

legality of the order of condonation of delay dated 10.10.2023 passed by

respondent 2 while providing further that the order of dismissal of the writ

petition of the petitioner dated 03.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.2811/2023 of

2023 shall not come in the way of appellant/petitioner herein in assailing the

said order dated 10.10.2023 on the ground that the respondent 2 herein has

erroneously condoned the delay and the petitioner herein whereafter in view

of the aforesaid liberty granted by LPA Bench amended the said WP(C)

No.1327/2024 incorporating therein challenge to the condonation of delay

order dated 10.10.2023 passed by respondent 2 herein and consequently

amended the petition being the present one.



Source link