BASHIR AHMAD MIR Vs. U.T. OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat discharged.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) This appeal under clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against an ad-interim order dated 25.10.2019, whereby, the respondents 3 to 7 have been directed to ensure adherence of decision of demarcation to the extent of land owned by respondents 8 to 10. The impugned order has been assailed by the appellants, primarily, on the ground that the writ court on the first date of hearing and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellants has passed the interim direction which has the effect of disposing of the writ petition finally. It is submitted that if the impugned order is complied with by the official respondents, there would remain nothing for adjudication in the writ petition. On merits, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that pursuant to the direction passed by a Bench of this Court dated 26.12.2018, while disposing of OWP No.2393/2018 filed by the respondents 8 to 10, there is some demarcation done by the revenue authorities at the back of the appellants and the respondents 8 to 10 instead of pursuing the remedy under the Land Revenue Act, have filed the writ petition seeking enforcement of order of demarcation passed by the revenue authorities, which is not permissible in law. In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the dispute between the parties involves disputed questions of facts and, therefore, writ petition is not remedy for determination of such questions.