Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CCP(S)/116/2025 of KAKU @ VIR SINGH Vs NIDHI MALIK DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REASI AND OTHERS on 24 March 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 116/2025 in WP(C) No. 441/2025 Kaku @ Vir Singh S/O late Sh. Shonka R/O Sujandhar Tehsil Bhomag, District Reasi. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate vs 1. Nidhi Malik , Deputy Commissioner (Collector)
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CCP(S) No. 116/2025 in
WP(C) No. 441/2025
Kaku @ Vir Singh
S/O late Sh. Shonka
R/O Sujandhar Tehsil Bhomag,
District Reasi.
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
vs
1. Nidhi Malik ,
Deputy Commissioner (Collector) Reasi.
2. Vinod Verma,
Block Development Officer,
Bhomag, Reasi.
3. Ravinder Singh S/O Govind Singh
R/O Sujandhar Tehsil Bhomag,
District Reasi.
……….Respondents
Through: Ms. Nazia Fazal, Adv., vice
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, 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
(24.03.2026)
01. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, seeks initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience and intentional non-compliance of the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 441/2025, titled Kaku @Vir Singh vs. UT of J&K & Ors.
02. Pursuant to notice, a statement of facts has been filed by the respondents, stating that the tractor road from PS Kotli Lajpat to Dhara Panchayat Sujandhar, Block Bhomag, constructed by the official respondents, as well as by the public at large, has been laid on State land and that no portion thereof has been constructed on the land owned by the petitioner. Serial No. 29
2
03. This Court, vide order dated 24.02.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 441/2025, had directed the official respondents not to utilize the land of the petitioner without adopting due course of law.
04. In view of the statement of facts filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition does not require any further proceeding and that the petitioner shall work out the available remedy in accordance with law.
05.
05. In light of the stand taken by the respondents, clearly stating that the petitioner’s land has not been utilized, as such, it can be said that no defiance or disobedience against the order passed by this Court has been committed by the respondents, so as to proceed against the respondents.
06. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is thus settled.
07. Disposed of as settled.
(M A CHOWDHARY) JUDGE
Jammu 24.03.2026 Amit