INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE OHANGAM BEERWAH BUDGAM TH.THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SHABIR AHMAD NAJAR AND ASSOC vs UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND OTHERS — WP(C)/1015/2026
Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Dismised on 06th May 2026.
CNR: JKHC010020802026
Filing Number
WP(C)/1583/2026
Filing Date
05-05-2026
Registration No
WP(C)/1015/2026
Registration Date
05-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY
Coram
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.A. CHOWDHARY
Bench Type
SINGLE BENCH
Category
SB OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ( 101 )
Sub-Category
REVENUE LAWS ( 4 )
Judicial Branch
OTHER WRIT PETITION (OWP)
Decision Date
06th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismised
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE OHANGAM BEERWAH BUDGAM TH.THEIR REPRESENTATIVES SHABIR AHMAD NAJAR AND ASSOC
Respondent(s)
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K (REVENUE) AND OTHERS
Orders
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the writ petition filed by villagers of Ohangam challenging a government order allotting a Plastic Waste Management Unit construction project to Rathsun, alleging construction was wrongly undertaken at Ohangam on common grazing land. The court found the petition involved mixed questions of fact and law unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, particularly when filed representatively, and noted petitioners could have approached executing officers or revenue authorities directly. The petition was dismissed in limine, though petitioners retained liberty to pursue other available legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the writ petition filed by villagers of Ohangam challenging a government order allotting a Plastic Waste Management Unit construction project to Rathsun, alleging construction was wrongly undertaken at Ohangam on common grazing land. The court found the petition involved mixed questions of fact and law unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, particularly when filed representatively, and noted petitioners could have approached executing officers or revenue authorities directly. The petition was dismissed in limine, though petitioners retained liberty to pursue other available legal remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts