Jammu and Kashmir High Court
WP(C)/750/2026 of IMTIYAZ AHMAD BHAT AND ANOTHER Vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE) on 15 April 2026
183 Suppl list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C)/750/2026 CM/1916/2026 1. Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat (Aged 59 years) S/O Abdul Aziz Bhat R/O Zainakote, Srinagar. 2. Mst. Hajira (Aged 65 years) W/O Abdul Aziz Bhat R/O Zainkote, Srinagar. Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.
S. No. 183
Suppl list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C)/750/2026
CM/1916/2026
1. Imtiyaz Ahmad Bhat (Aged 59 years)
S/O Abdul Aziz Bhat
R/O Zainakote, Srinagar.
2. Mst. Hajira (Aged 65 years)
W/O Abdul Aziz Bhat
R/O Zainkote, Srinagar.
Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. N. A. Ronga, Advocate.
Vs.
3. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Commissioner/Secretary, to Government Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, J&K, Srinagar/Jammu.
4. Tehsildar Srinagar Central, Shalteng, Srinagar.
5. Naib Tehsildar, Zainakote, Srinagar.
6. Patwari Halqa, Zainakote, Srinagar
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA 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.
ORDER
15.04.2026
1. The petitioners claiming to be using a pathway over State land since the time they purchased the adjacent land measuring 01 kanal 14 marlas, comprising of khasra No. 242 situate at Mustafabad, Zainakote, Tehsil Central Shalteng, District Srinagar, in the year 1998 by way of a registered sale deed and claim an easementary right over the pathway on the adjacent state land, entitled to use the same without being obstructed by the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents, without passing any order, have been threatening the petitioners of blocking the said pathway to the house of the petitioners without any reasonable cause or justification and prayed that some interim measure be ordered so that the access to the house of the petitioners is not
blocked by the respondents. He has drawn the attention of this court to the copy of the sale deed of the petitioners’ land and the extract of jamabandi compiled in the year 1996-97 and a khakha dasti allegedly prepared by the local Patwari Halqa, indicating the pathway from the state land comprising of survey no. 241 to the plot of the petitioners in khasra no. 242.
3. Heard.
4. The petitioners have raised disputed questions of fact with regard to their claim of easementary rights over the adjacent State land, and such a matter cannot be decided under the writ jurisdiction by this court. It would have been advisable for the petitioners to workout the legal remedy of approaching to a civil court for determination of their rights as pleaded by them with regard to easementary rights.
5. In this view of the matter and to facilitate petitioner to avail the legal remedy, the petition is disposed of at this stage with the following directions:
a) Petitioners shall work out their legal remedy of approaching a civil court by filing a civil suit within a period of 15 days from the date of this order; and
b) Meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from causing any interference into the pathway to the house of the petitioners as claimed by them from the state land comprising of survey no. 241, for a period of 15 days from the date of this order.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed of, along with application(s).
;
(MA CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 15.04.2026 “Hilal”