Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CCP(S)/209/2024 of RATTNO DEVI Vs MANU HANSA SDM MARH, JAMMU on 28 September 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 209/2024 IN WP(C) No. 3211/2023 C Rattno Devi …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate Vs Manu Hansa SDM Marh, Jammu .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Coram:
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP(S) No. 209/2024 IN
WP(C) No. 3211/2023
C
Rattno Devi
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate
Vs
Manu Hansa SDM Marh, Jammu
.…. Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
28.09.2026
1. Vide order dated 15.04.2024, the respondents were directed to conclude the enquiry in respect of the Permanent Resident Certificates of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month.
2. In compliance with the order dated 15.04.2024, an enquiry was conducted and, vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the office of the Collector Land Acquisition, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Marh, it was concluded that Permanent Resident Certificates alleged to have been issued in favour of Madan Lal and Subash Chander have not been issued from the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Marh, and that no such record was available in the said office.
3. In view of the aforesaid position, once the record itself is found to be unavailable in the concerned office, no further enquiry into the matter is contemplated. Accordingly, sufficient compliance with the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 is made out. The petitioner, if still not satisfied with the compliance report, shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy, including challenging the order dated 04.08.2026.
4. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed.
(Shahzad Azeem) Judge Jammu 28.09.2026 Mihul
Sr. No. 18