MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI AND OTHERS MR. ATEEB KANTH, HILAL AHMAD, SHOWKAT AHMAD vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE) — WP(C)/981/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.

Next hearing 03-Jul-2026

CNR: JKHC010020032026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1530/2026

Filing Date

02-May-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/981/2026

Registration Date

02-May-2026

Bench Type

SINGLE BENCH

Category

SB OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ( 101 )

Sub-Category

REVENUE LAWS ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

OTHER WRIT PETITION (OWP)

Last updated 08-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 226-Section103 Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUSHTAQ AHMAD WANI AND OTHERS MR. ATEEB KANTH, HILAL AHMAD, SHOWKAT AHMAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS (REVENUE)

Case History

  1. 03-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 03-Jul-2026

    For Taking Steps

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A. Chowdhary

  3. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A. ChowdharyView PDF

    Case Summary: WP(C) 981/2026 Petitioners Mushtaq Ahmad Wani and others challenged orders dated 28.01.2026 and 21.05.2025 whereby Mutation No. 1603 (dated 18.01.1999) was set aside by revenue authorities. Petitioners argued they possessed the land for decades without disturbance and that the 27+ year limitation period was ignored; they also contended the Financial Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act. The court heard the petition and issued notice to respondents (returnable within four weeks). Pending hearing, parties directed to maintain status quo on the property. Case listed for 03.07.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 05-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 02-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/981/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(C) 981/2026 Petitioners Mushtaq Ahmad Wani and others challenged orders dated 28.01.2026 and 21.05.2025 whereby Mutation No. 1603 (dated 18.01.1999) was set aside by revenue authorities. Petitioners argued they possessed the land for decades without disturbance and that the 27+ year limitation period was ignored; they also contended the Financial Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act. The court heard the petition and issued notice to respondents (returnable within four weeks). Pending hearing, parties directed to maintain status quo on the property. Case listed for 03.07.2026. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case