BHIM SEN AND ANOTHER vs UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS Advocate - MONIKA KOHLI — WP(C)/779/2026

Case under Article 226-Section103 Section 1A. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Apr-2026

CNR: JKHC020015332026

Filing Number

WP(C)/1125/2026

Filing Date

24-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/779/2026

Registration Date

30-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SB OTHER WRIT PETITIONS ( 101 )

Sub-Category

MATTERS RELATING TO REVENUE LAWS ( 4 )

Judicial Branch

OTHER WRIT PETITION (OWP)

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 30-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Article 226-Section103 Section 1A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHIM SEN AND ANOTHER

    Adv. MOHD LATIF MALIK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.UT OF J AND K TH COMMISSIONER SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, JAMMU AND OTHERS Advocate - MONIKA KOHLI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq NargalView PDF

    Summary The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order that set aside their land mutation and directed their eviction as illegal State land occupants. The court held that mere possession of State land, even for decades, does not confer ownership rights without valid legal allotment, and that the petitioners failed to establish any lawful entitlement to the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Wasim Sadiq NargalView PDF

  4. 01-Apr-2026

    For Admission Before Notice

  5. 24-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/779/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the Divisional Commissioner's order that set aside their land mutation and directed their eviction as illegal State land occupants. The court held that mere possession of State land, even for decades, does not confer ownership rights without valid legal allotment, and that the petitioners failed to establish any lawful entitlement to the disputed property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case