BASHIR AHMAD NAJAR Vs. BASHIR AHMAD SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, through the medium of this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks setting aside of two Orders: one dated 25th of April, 2022 passed by the Court of learned Munsiff, Pulwama (for short "the Trial Court") in the Suit filed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein titled 'Bashir Ahmad Najar v. Bashir Ahmad Shah & Ors.', whereby an application for interim relief filed by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein, along with the Suit, was dismissed; and the other dated 24th of June, 2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Pulwama (Appellate Court) in the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner herein against the aforesaid Order dated 25 th of April, 2022 passed by the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the said appeal.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner herein, as emerges from the perusal of the file, is that he claims to be the owner in possession of a piece of land measuring 13 Marlas, comprising of Survey Nos. 1668 (03 Marlas) and 1669 (10 Marlas), situated at Koil, Pulwama. It is stated that the said land has been given to the Petitioner by way of gift from its erstwhile owner and that the Petitioner was using the pathway upto the said land from the said survey numbers, starting from the main road as his ingress and egress upto the said land, but the Respondents herein started raising construction on their land in such a manner that the said ingress and egress of the Petitioner got blocked.

(3.) The Petitioner further claims that he, although, made several requests to the Respondents not to block the said ingress and egress with respect to his land, but, the Respondents categorically refused to accede to the requests so made by the Petitioner, thereby forcing the Petitioner to approach the Revenue authorities concerned with a formal application, which, as on date, is pending before the Tehsildar, Pulwama. In the said application, a report is stated to have been sought by the Tehsildar concerned from the field agency, but despite certain initiatives having been taken by the Petitioner before the Revenue authorities, the Respondents herein did not stop the construction and continued to violate the easementary rights of the Petitioner.