Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/2256/2026 of SHAMEEMA BANO AND OTHERS Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND OTHER on 11 September 2026
138 Suppl. List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2256/2026 CM No. 6155/2026 Shameema Bano and Ors. …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Ms Asma Rashid, Advocate Vs. UT of JK and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Raheela Khan, Assisting Counsel CORAM:
S. No. 138
Suppl. List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 2256/2026
CM No. 6155/2026
Shameema Bano and Ors.
…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through:
Ms Asma Rashid, Advocate
Vs.
UT of JK and Ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through:
Ms. Raheela Khan, Assisting Counsel
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, 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
11.09.2026
01. The grievance projected by the petitioners in the present petition is that they have approached the Tehsildar, Budgam, by way of an application for conducting the demarcation, but the same has not been considered and decided by the Tehsildar concerned.
02. A perusal of the first application dated 1st July, 2026, reveals that petitioners had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Budgam for demarcation of their land which was marked to the Assistant Commissioner Revenue, Budgam for action under rules and in turn was marked to the Tehsildar Budgam, as is evident from the Communication dated 3rd July, 2026. The petitioners have also submitted another application for demarcation of their proprietary land as also for protection against illegal interference over the land as mentioned in the representation dated 23rd July, 2026.
03. Notice.
04. Notice waived by Mr. Ilyas Laway, learned GA, on behalf of official respondents. He submits that petitioners have also filed suit for mandatory injunction against the private respondents for the same survey numbers, as such, it would be appropriate if the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court.
05. Be that as it may, once the Revenue Authorities are is seized of the application of the petitioner, the same is required to be disposed of in any manner.
06. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Tehsildar concerned to decide the application and pass speaking order in accordance with law. In the event, the Tehsildar concerned decides to conduct the demarcation, no person shall be dispossessed.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE SRINAGAR: 11.09.2026 “Shamim Dar”