Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/1765/2025 of RESIDENTS OF BAGHE KHOMINI (LADAKH CASE) Vs UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH AND ORS. (REVENUE) on 19 May 2026
1 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 1765/2025 CM No.4607/2025 Residents of Bagh-e-Khomini Kargil through 1. Mohammad Hanifa (53 years) Lumbardar, S/O Mohammad Ai, R/O Bagh-e-Khomini Kargil. 2. Mohammad Ishaq (51 years) S/O Mohammad Abdullah R/O Bagh-e-Khomini
P a g e | 1
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C) No. 1765/2025
CM No.4607/2025
Residents of Bagh-e-Khomini
Kargil through
1. Mohammad Hanifa (53 years)
Lumbardar,
S/O Mohammad Ai,
R/O Bagh-e-Khomini
Kargil.
2. Mohammad Ishaq (51 years)
S/O Mohammad Abdullah
R/O Bagh-e-Khomini
Kargil.
…Petitioner(s)
Through: Adv. Babar Bilal Malik.
Adv. Mian Muzaffar.
Vs.
1. Union Territory of Ladakh through
Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.,
Revenue Department,
UT Secretariat Leh,
Ladakh.
2. Deputy Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer, LAHDC Kargil.
3. Assistant Commissioner (Revenue),
Kargil.
4. Tehsildar, Kargil.
5. Naib Tehsildar, Kargil.
6. Nasir Hussain,
S/O Late Fida Hussain.
7. Mohammad Ali, and
8. Amir Ali
sons of Mohd Hassan
9. Mohd Abdullah
10. Mohd. Hussain, and
11. Mohd Mehdi
sons of Rahim
P a g e | 2
12. Haji Mohd
S/O Abdullah
13. Mohd Hussain
14. Ghulam Mohd., and
15. Mohd. Raza
Sons of Ghulam Hussain
16. Mohd. Abbas
17. Sajjad Hussain, and
18. Mohd. Yousuf
Sons of Mohd. Ali.
All residents of village Poyen Tehsil & District Kargil.
…Respondent(s)
Through: DSGI T.M.Shamsi, with
Adv. Beenish
Adv. Mohammad Rafiq.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, 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.
JUDGMENT
ORDER
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, residents of Bagh-e-Khomini, in a representative capacity seeking intervention of this Court against the alleged inaction of the official respondents, in resolving a serious boundary dispute and preventing illegal construction over the land belonging to the petitioners, situated at village Bagh-e- Khomeini Kargil.
2. The case put up by the petitioners is that they are the owners-in- possession of multiple parcels of land situated at village Bagh-e- Khomeini Kargil, which stand duly mutated in their favour in the revenue records under Nautor Mutation Nos. 510 and 516; that the private respondents, who are residents of a neighbouring village Poyen, have unlawfully encroached upon portions of the petitioners’ land and have started raising illegal construction thereon, thereby giving rise to a serious boundary dispute between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite repeated representations and being approached the Deputy Commissioner Kargil and other Revenue Authorities, requesting immediate P a g e | 3
demarcation of the land and stoppage of unauthorized construction activities, no effective action has been taken by the authorities on the ground; that the continued inaction on the part of the official respondents is causing grave prejudice to the petitioners and may lead to further complications and law-and- order issues.
4. Despite several and numerous opportunities, the respondents have failed to file reply/objections. Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, learned counsel for the private respondents No.6 to 15, while appearing for them, submits that he has been instructed to make a statement on their behalf that the petition be allowed with the condition that private respondents be associated with the demarcation as prayed for, by the official respondents as and when it is undertaken. Learned DSGI while appearing for the official respondents, in view of the fact that the matter is essentially between private parties, appropriate orders be passed and the petition be disposed of.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon consideration of the material placed on record and having been fairly conceded by the private respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy raised in the present petition primarily relates to demarcation of land and protection of possession, which necessarily requires prompt action by the competent revenue authorities, in accordance with law.
6. The revenue authorities are under a statutory obligation to maintain proper revenue records and to ensure that disputes relating to boundaries and encroachments are addressed expeditiously. In the present case, despite the grievance projected by the petitioners before the competent authorities, no effective exercise appears to have been undertaken for demarcation of the land in question, which compelled the filing of this petition.
7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is disposed of ,with the following directions:
P a g e | 4
i. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall undertake and complete the demarcation of the land claimed by the petitioners situated at village Bagh-e-Khomeini Kargil, strictly in accordance with the revenue records and applicable law.
ii. The exercise of demarcation shall be conducted after issuing notice to all affected parties including the private respondents and by affording them an opportunity of participation during the demarcation proceedings.
iii. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon the respondents. iv. In the event if it is found during demarcation that any unauthorized construction or encroachment has been raised upon the land belonging to the petitioners, appropriate steps in accordance with law shall be taken forthwith for restraining further illegal construction and for preservation of the nature and status of the property. v. Till completion of the demarcation exercise, the private respondents are directed not to raise any further construction over the disputed land.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the title or ownership rights of the parties and the revenue authorities shall independently determine the factual position on the basis of the relevant records during the demarcation proceedings.
9. Disposed of along with pending application(s).
( M. A. CHOWDHARY ) JUDGE Srinagar 19.05.2026
Muzammil. Q