MUSHTAQ AHMAD DENDRU AND OTHERS M/S SYED SAJAD GEELANI AND ASSOC vs UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE) AND OTHERS — WP(C)/992/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Next hearing: 08th July 2026.

Next hearing 08-Jul-2026

CNR: JKHC010020222026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1545/2026

Filing Date

04-May-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/992/2026

Registration Date

04-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 DENDRU AND OTHERS M/S SYED SAJAD GEELANI AND ASSOC

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA (MINISTRY OF DEFENCE) AND OTHERS

Case History

  1. 08-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jul-2026

    For Admission Non Fresh

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.A. Chowdhary

  3. 06-May-2026

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

    Case Summary: WP(C) 992/2026 - Mushtaq Ahmad Dendru v. Union of India Petitioners claimed ownership of 8 Kanals 13 Marlas of land in Sonamarg, Ganderbal, purchased in 2007, which was allegedly requisitioned by the Army. Though revenue records show requisition, the land lies outside Army fencing. Petitioners sought either formal acquisition with compensation or vacation and restoration of the property. The court adjourned the case to 08.07.2026 after issuing notice to respondents 3 and 4 (returnable in four weeks), and directed the District Collector, Ganderbal, to consider any representation filed by the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 06-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 04-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/992/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP(C) 992/2026 - Mushtaq Ahmad Dendru v. Union of India Petitioners claimed ownership of 8 Kanals 13 Marlas of land in Sonamarg, Ganderbal, purchased in 2007, which was allegedly requisitioned by the Army. Though revenue records show requisition, the land lies outside Army fencing. Petitioners sought either formal acquisition with compensation or vacation and restoration of the property. The court adjourned the case to 08.07.2026 after issuing notice to respondents 3 and 4 (returnable in four weeks), and directed the District Collector, Ganderbal, to consider any representation filed by the petitioners. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case