Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1389/2026 of MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL BHAT Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE / RURAL DEVELOPMENT) on 7 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No.1389/2026 Mohammad Maqbool Bhat …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Saleem Gull, Advocate. Vs Union Territory of J&K And Others .…. Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER (07.07.2026)
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No.1389/2026
Mohammad Maqbool Bhat
…..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saleem Gull, Advocate.
Vs
Union Territory of J&K And Others
.…. Respondents
Through: None.
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
(07.07.2026)
01. The very fact that the petitioner, before coming with the institution of this writ petition on 16.06.2026, had come to sue the private respondents No. 5 to 7 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sopore with institution of a civil suit dated 04.08.2025 is a self-admission of the petitioner that disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter for having adjudication of which the civil suit remedy was resorted to, whereas for the same very relief purpose the petitioner has said defendants impleaded as the respondents No. 5 to 7 co-joined by the official respondents as a disguise to cover up the effect of the pending civil suit, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is relatable to disputed territory of facts Sr. No.1 Regular Cause List
2
notwithstanding the presence of the respondents No. 1 to 4 as the official respondents who otherwise have nothing to do with private disputes obtaining between the petitioner and the respondents No.5 to 6.
02. Therefore, present writ petition is dismissed leaving the petitioner to pursue his remedy and relief which he has already availed through the medium of the civil suit in which the petitioner has the option of even impleading the new defendants in case if any public/ statutory authority is not coming forward with the due compliance and enforcement of rules and regulations governing the construction in the area where the petitioner is located in terms of his residence vis-à-vis the residence of the respondents No. 5 to 7.
03. Dismissed.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE SRINAGAR
07.07.2026
“Opinder”