Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/285/2026 of HALEEMA BEGUM Vs ZOONA BEGUM AND OTHERS on 22 July 2026
No. 03 REGULAR CAUSE LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No. 285/2026 CM No. 4349/2026 CM No. 4350/2026 Haleema Begum …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. M. A . Wani, Advocate with Mr. Z A . Wani, Advocate Vs. Zoona Begum and Others ...Respondent(s) Through:
Serial No. 03
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No. 285/2026
CM No. 4349/2026
CM No. 4350/2026
Haleema Begum
…Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. M. A. Wani, Advocate with
Mr. Z A. Wani, Advocate
Vs.
Zoona Begum and Others
...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
22.07.2026
1. This Court finds no error in exercise of judgment on the part of learned Sub Judge, Trehgam, Kupwara in passing an order dated 10.06.2026 by reference to two civil suits connected together on File No.10/2026 and File No.11/2026.
2. The petitioner herein Haleema Begum is the plaintiff in civil suit on File No. 10/2026.
3. The other suit on File No.11/2026 is by Nazima Malik and others.
4. By virtue of an ex parte ad interim order dated 30.03.2026, the parties to the suit have been directed to maintain status quo on spot.
5. At the instance of the contesting defendants No. 1 to 4 in both the suits approaching with an application for clarification of status quo direction, the court of learned Sub Judge has said that status quo does not come in the way of exercise of statutory power at the end of the revenue officials under Land Revenue Act Samvat, 1996 read with Standing Order No. 23-A related to attestation of mutations and for this learned Sub Judge has relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India mentioned in para 8.
6. Therefore, this Court does not find any wrong on the part of the Sub Judge-Trehgam, Kupwara in following the dictum of law that the status quo direction in terms of an order dated 30.03.2026 is not meant to come in the way of exercise of statutory power related to attestation of mutations and this of course goes without doubt
that attestation of mutation exercise is to be done in accordance with law by hearing all the stake holders qua the estate for which mutation is being intended to be attested.
7. Petition is, thus, not entertained and is dismissed along with connected CM/s.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 22.07.2026 Imtiyaz
Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 27.07.2026 12:59