Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CCP(D)/7/2023 of TASNEEMA RAFIQ Vs MR SHYAMBIR AND ANR on 28 September 2026
No. 14 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CCP(D) 7/2023 In OWP 1975/2018 TASNEEMA RAFIQ …PETITIONER(S) Through: Mr. Zaid Mehraj, Advocate vice Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate. V/s. MR SHYAMBIR AND ANR ...RESPONDENT(S) Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
Serial No. 14
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CCP(D) 7/2023 In
OWP 1975/2018
TASNEEMA RAFIQ
…PETITIONER(S)
Through:
Mr. Zaid Mehraj, Advocate vice
Mr. Salih Pirzada, Advocate.
V/s.
MR SHYAMBIR AND ANR
...RESPONDENT(S)
Through:
Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, 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
01. The instant contempt petition arises out of an order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, by virtue of which the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Collector Land Acquisition (Assistant Commissioner, Revenue), Ganderbal, for completion of the documents for seeking compensation for the land. In addition, the (Assistant Commissioner, Revenue), Ganderbal was also directed to ensure payment of the compensation to the petitioner in terms of the applicable laws and rules.
02. Since the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench was not complied with, the instant contempt petition was preferred, in which notice was issued on 02.03.2023.
03. The record reveals that a detailed compliance report stands filed on behalf of the respondents in terms of order dated 02.09.2026, wherein the respondents have submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench mentioned supra stands complied with and a detailed consideration order dated 01.08.2026 has been passed, by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for the release of compensation was rejected. The said consideration order forms part of the compliance report and has been placed on record as Annexure-I.
04. This Court, after perusing the compliance report filed by the respondents and also the order of consideration, is of the considered view that the order passed by the Division Bench stands complied with, and, therefore, no contempt is made out.
05. Accordingly, the proceedings in the instant contempt petition are closed. Rule, if any, shall stand discharged. However, closure of the instant contempt petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid consideration order by way of fresh proceedings, if so advised.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 28.09.2026
“Hamid”
Abdul Hamid Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document