Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1862/2026 of ABDUL GANI SHEIKH Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE) on 7 August 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1862/2026 CM No. (5022/2026) Abdul Gani Sheikh …Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ishfaq Bashir, Advocate VERSUS Union Territory of J&K And Ors. …Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1862/2026
CM No. (5022/2026)
Abdul Gani Sheikh
…Applicant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ishfaq Bashir, Advocate
VERSUS
Union Territory of J&K And Ors.
…Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, 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
07.08.2026
1. This is a third writ petition in succession from the end of the petitioner with first writ petition being OWP No. 1740/2011 disposed of vide an order dated 02.12.2015 followed by writ petition WP(C) No. 07/2025 disposed of vide an order dated 02.01.2025 and still the petitioner is not feeling satisfied with the outcome of his search for retrieval of 3 marlas of land but unsure of the khasra number whether 705/26 min or 706/26 min.
2. Be that as it may, the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara has come up with a latest exercise in the Sr. No. 121 Supp. 1
form of an Order No. DCK/LS/25/116-19 dated 16.12.2025 against which the petitioner is now coming again with present writ petition seeking quashment of said order and again seeking detection, demarcation and retrieval of his alleged 3 marlas out of 11 marlas of land as per the alleged claim of the petitioner.
3. The writ petition itself is toned in a disputed state of facts as domain of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to do land searching for one of the aggrieved brothers vis-à- vis his two other brothers.
4. If the petitioner has any grievance by reference to his share or claim in any property purportedly relatable to him and his two brothers, who are respondents 5 and 6, then the door of a civil court was and is always open for the petitioner to file a civil suit thereby seek a declaration with consequential relief/s be it for 3 marlas of land by reference to khasra Nos. 705/26 min and/or 706/26 min or larger area of land as against his two brothers.
5. Admission of this writ petition at this stage would again be an encouragement to the petitioner to take this Court for a ride as he came to take this Court for a ride on two occasions firstly by virtue of writ petition OWP No. 1740/2011 and secondly by virtue of WP(C) No. 07/2025 and this time this Court is not falling to the trap of the petitioner.
6. Hence this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke remedy of civil suit against the respondent No. 5 and 6 or for that matter in case if the petitioner has any grievance against the District Revenue Administration, then even that Administration is amenable to a civil suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for which the petitioner is well within his right to exercise his discretion and sue the persons reckoned by him to be denying his right to relief qua the property in question.
7. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revenue side has mixed the two khasra numbers to create the confusion and this is where
this Court is meaning to say that there is a disputed question of fact which this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to venture into and do the tape measuring for the petitioner land and khasra number locations.
8. Dismissed accordingly.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 07.08.2026 Akhil Dev