In a significant development concerning a land dispute in Kishtwar district, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has issued notices to the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and other respondents in a case filed by 25 petitioners, including Taja Begum, from Warwan tehsil of Kishtwar.
The petitioners, represented by Mr. F.S. Butt, Advocate, have filed a writ petition under Article 225 of the Constitution of India, alleging that the Kishtwar Development Authority (KDA) is constructing a complex, and the Public Works (R&B) Department is constructing an approach road to the complex, which passes through their private land.
During the hearing on June 7th, 2024, a single bench comprising Justice Mr. Mohd. Yousuf Wani heard the case, WP(C) No. 1350/2024. The court directed the respondents to file their responses within four weeks. Additionally, the court issued notice in CM No. 3365/2024, a related application, with the same deadline for response as the main case.
In an interim order, subject to any vacation or modification upon consideration of the respondents’ objections and arguments, the High Court has restrained the respondents from interfering with the land of the petitioners, which is the subject matter of the petition, except strictly in accordance with the law. This order effectively halts the construction activities on the disputed land until further notice.
The case has been listed for further hearing on August 9th, 2024, when the court will consider the responses from the respondents and arguments from both parties. The High Court’s order has garnered attention as it involves a land dispute between local residents and the authorities in Kishtwar district. The interim order restraining the authorities and the private contractor engaged in the construction of the road and complex from proceeding further has provided temporary relief to the petitioners.
As the case progresses, legal experts and observers will closely monitor the developments and the responses filed by the respondents. The final outcome of this case could have significant implications for the parties involved and potentially set a precedent for similar land-related disputes in the region.”
