Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Farooq Ahmad Lone And Others vs . on 24 July, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Reserved on:23.05.2025
Pronounced on: 24. 07 .2025
OWP No. 1809/2017 c/w
CCP(S) No. 24/2023
BASHIR AHMAD TELI.
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikander, Advocate.
Vs.
STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS.
Through: Mr. Mohsin. Qadri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting counsel.
WP(C) 1326/2023
FAROOQ AHMAD LONE AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. GulzarAhmad, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1093/2023
GULAM DIN BOKHAN ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. M. Saleem Mir, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1268/2023
AVTAR SINGH ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1243/2023
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. S.M. Saleem, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
1
WP(C) 1589/2023
MOHAMMAD YOUSUF AND ANR ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1616/2023
GHULAM QADIR BHAT ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Usman Gani, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1223/2023
BASHIR AHMAD BAJAR ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Mansoor Ahmad, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 246/2024
GHULAM AHMAD BHAT ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Bhat Fayaz, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1870/2023
ABDUL RASHID MIR AND ORS ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Waseem Ramzan Lone, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1785/2023
MUNEER AHMAD KHAN ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Nazir, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
2
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1720/2023
MOHAMMAD ASLAM GANAIE ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1863/2023
FAYAZ AHMAD KHANDAY ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 843/2024
MANZOOR AHMAD DAR AND ORS ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Ms. Tabassum, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 363/2024
ASHIQ HUSSAIN GANAIE AND ORS. ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Ms. Tabassum, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 945/2023
SUBA CHACHI ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Waqar Ul Haq, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1647/2023
HILAL AHMAD KHAN AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ahsan Ul Haq, Advocate
Vs.
3
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 247/2023
GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Showat Ah. Makroo, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 654/2023
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL NAIKOO AND OTHERS
...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Waqar Ul Khan, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 854/2023
MUSHTAQ AHMAD MIR ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Parvez Ahmad Wani, Advocate
Vs.
GOVERNMENT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 997/2023
SARWAR PASWAL ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. M. Saleem Mir, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 956/2023 c/w W(C)1452/2023
1. FAROOQ AHMAD THOKAR &
2. MOHAMMAD YASEEN PAUL & ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ahsan Ul HAq, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 718/2023
Gh. Mohi UD Din Ganai ...Petitioner(s)
4
Through: Mr. Waqar Ul Haq, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.
WP(C) 1053/2023
Mohammad Maqbool Mir ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S.A Geelanli, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 567/2023
Khazir Mohammad Payer & Ors. ...Petitioner(s)
Mr. T.A Lone, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
WP(C) 892/2023
Fayaz Ahmad Mir & Anr. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikander, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 863/2023
Abdul Hamid Bhat ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Waqar Ul Haq, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
WP(C) 1108/2023 c/w
CCP(S) 454/2023
LIYAKAT ALI BADANA AND OTHERS ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
5
WP(C) 1334/2023
ABDUL HAMID KHAN ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S.M. Saleem, Advocate
Vs.
UT OF J AND K AND ORS ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1079/2023
ASHIQ HUSSAIN GANIE AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Waseem Ramzan, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
OWP 1652/2018
MOHAMMAD YOUSUF GOJER QURESHI ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. S. A. Makroo, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Danish, Advocate
Vs.
STATE OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.
Mr. Allau din Ganie, AAG.
WP(C) 982/2023
NAZIR AHMAD RAINA ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Muzaffar Nabi Lone, Advocate
Vs.
DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER KASHMIR AND OTHERS.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 879/2023
SHAKEEL AHMAD KHAN AND ORS. ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ahsaan, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 144/2024 c/w
CCP(S) No. 117/2024.
ALL INDIA LUMBERDARS ASSOCIATION ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ateeb Kanth, Advocate
6
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 824/2023
SAJAD AHMAD BHAT AND ORS ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Shahbaz Sikandar, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1263/2023
SIRAJ UD DIN KALOO ...Petitioner (s)
Through: Mr. Mubashir Ahmad Gatoo, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
WP(C) 1048/2023
MOHAMMAD IQBAL TASS ...Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND OTHERS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
1. In all these petitions, common issues were involved, as such were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The facts are extracted from the writ petition bearing OWP No.
1809/2017, being the first writ petition filed for assailing SRO No.
412 dated 29.09.2017.
3. The petitioners, claiming to have been appointed as Lambardars
otherwise than by election under the provisions of the Jammu and
Kashmir Lambardari Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
along with the Jammu and Kashmir Lambardari Rules, 1980
7
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), have assailed SRO No. 412
dated 29.09.2017 issued by the respondent No. 2, to the extent of
deletion of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 16 of the Rules and for directing the
respondents not to dislodge the petitioners from their respective
offices of Lambardar.
4. The challenge to SRO 412 dated 29.09.2017 has been thrown on the
grounds that the same is in violation of rights guaranteed under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and with the deletion
of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 16, of the Rules a vested right of the
petitioners, in terms of the Un-Amended Rule-16 of the Rules, which
had the effect of allowing the Lambardars to continue in their office
till death or dismissal in terms of Rule 9 or till conducting of general
elections as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules, has been snatched
away by the respondents.
5. The respondents have filed the response, stating therein that Section 6
of the Act gives power to the Government to make Rules so as to
carry out the purpose of the Act and in terms of section 6 of the Act,
the Government vide Notification SRO 363 of 1980 notified the
Jammu and Kashmir Lumbardari Rules, 1980. As per the Rules, a
Lambardar is required to be elected by the general public and the term
of office of the Lambardar has been fixed 5 years only. Sub-Rule 5 of
Rule 16 of the Rules provided that Lambardar appointed otherwise
than by election can hold the office till he dies or is
dismissed/discharged or till the general election for the office of
Lambardar is held. Thus, it is clear that a Lambardar can hold the
office till general election for such office is held. The petitioners
cannot claim that they should be allowed to continue till death or
8
dismissal. In fact, the Rules provide only 5 years term of office for
Lambardar. In order to remove ambiguity in the Rules and make the
Rules, 1980 consistent with the Act, after thorough discussions, the
Government vide SRO 412 of 2017 effected some amendments in
Rules 3, 5, 11, 14,16 and 17 of the Rules. It is further stated that the
respondents have not gone beyond the statutory powers as conferred
under the Act and as per SRO 412 of 2017, the term of office of the
Lambardar has been fixed for 5 years or till he attains the age of 60
years, whichever is earlier. Due to prevailing conditions, elections
could not be held against the post of Lambardar and in some areas
due to death/resignation etc. of an existing Lambardar, some
nominations/appointments have been made against the posts of
Lambardar till elections are held. The petitioners cannot claim that
they are entitled to hold the posts of Lambardar till their death, when
they have not been elected by the people of the area.
6. Learned senior counsel and other counsel for the petitioners have
argued that under the un-amended Rules, the petitioners had vested
right to hold the office of Lambardar till elections are held and by
deleting the sub-rule 5 of Rule 16, the respondents have snatched the
vested right of the petitioners to continue to hold the office of
Lambardar till the elections are held.
7. Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned senior A.A.G, has argued that no right was
vested in the petitioners to continue as Lambardars till holding of
elections. He submits that even in case of elected Lambardars, the
outgoing Lambardar can continue till the election of his successor, but
Government can also direct otherwise. He has further argued that no
9
person holding the office of Lambardar can continue beyond the age
of 60 years.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Before this Court proceeds ahead to determine the controversy, it is
appropriate to take note of the fact that in all these petitions, challenge
has been thrown to deletion of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 16 of the Rules
only.
10. This is an admitted position that Section 6 of the J&K Lambardari
Act vests power with the Government to make rules for various
matters including the procedure for election or appointment of
Lambardars and the petitioners have also not disputed the rule making
power of the Government. Their sole contention is that by deletion of
Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 16 of the Rules, the Government has snatched
away the vested rights of the petitioners to continue as Lambardar till
the holding of elections and a Lambardar could have continued in the
office of Lambardar till his death unless dismissed in accordance with
Rules.
11. The rules relevant for understanding and adjudicating the controversy
at hand are extracted as under:
“11. Temporary appointment of a substitute and his duties:
(1) The Tehsildar may appoint a substitute in place of the
Lambardar placed under suspension under rule 8 or 10, as
the case may be.
(2) In case a Lambardar remains, with the permission of
the Tehsildar, absent by reason of sickness or any other
reason for the period exceeding six months or is unable to
perform the duties imposed upon him under these rules, a
substitute may be appointed in his place [for a period not
exceeding six months. However, in exceptional cases, the
period of six months can be extended with the prior
approval of District Collector].
(3) A substitute (Lambardar) appointed under the above
sub rules shall be entitled to the remuneration payable or
10
the amounts to be recovered by him during the period of
suspension of a Lambardar and perform all duties
mentioned in rule 6.
14. Elections
(1) A general election of Lambardar shall be held in
accordance with these rules, within such time and within
such areas as may be prescribed by the Revenue Minister
by a Notification in the Government Gazette.
(2) Deleted
(3) Where a vacancy is ordered to be filled by election, such
election shall take place in accordance with these rules and
the Revenue Minister may, in respect of the vacancy so
filled by selection, order, that no fresh election shall take
place till the next election or till the constituency again falls
vacant.
(4) Subject to the provisions of clause (a) where the
vacancy is not filled by election, the appointment to a
vacant post of Lambardar shall be made by the Revenue
Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar subject to
confirmation by the Collector for a period not exceeding 6
months:
Provided that the appointee, shall possess all the
qualifications prescribed in this behalf and shall not suffer
from any disabilities that apply to the election of the
Lambardar.
Un-amended Rule 16:
Term of office of Lambardar
(1) The term of office for which Lambardar shall be elected
shall not ordinarily exceed five years.
(2) An outgoing Lambardar shall, unless the Government
otherwise direct, continue in office until the election of his
successor is announced.
(3) An outgoingmember may, if otherwise qualified, be re-
elected.
(4) When as a result of any enquiry held under these rules
an order declaring the election of any Lambardar void has
been announced, such Lambardar shall forthwith cease to
hold his office.
(5) When a Lambardar is appointed otherwise than by
election he shall continue till he dies or is dismissed/
discharged or till the general election of Lambardars is
held.
Amended Rule 16:
Term of office of Lambardar:
11
(1) The term of office for which Lambardar may be elected
shall be 5 years or till he attains the age of 60 years,
whichever is earlier.
(2) An outgoing Lambardar shall, unless the Government
otherwise direct, continue in office till the election of his
successor.
(3) An outgoing member may, if otherwise qualified, be
eligible for contesting the election.
(4) When as a result of any enquiry held under these rules,
an order declaring the election of any Lambardar void has
been announced, such Lambardar shall forthwith cease to
hold his office”
10. Rule 14 of the Rules provides that a general election of
Lambardar shall be held in accordance with these rules and in
terms of amended Rule 16 of the Rules, the term for which the
Lambardar shall be elected is 5 years or till he attains age of 60
years, whichever is earlier. No challenge has been thrown to
the amendment made in Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 16 of the Rules.
When the elected Lambardar cannot continue beyond the age
of 60 years, then the appointed/nominated Lambardars also
cannot continue beyond the age of 60 years.
11. The petitioners are aggrieved of deletion of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule
16 only. The petitioners are admittedly not the elected
Lambardars but were appointed otherwise than by election.
Lambardar has been assigned certain duties and office of
Lambardar is not a source for providing employment unlike the
services under the Central/State/UT Governments.
12. In ‘Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram, (2009) 3 SCC 439′, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that although the post
of Lambardar is governed by the provisions of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act and the Rules framed there-under, holder of the
said post is not a Government servant. He does not hold a civil
12
post within the meaning of Article 309 of the Constitution ofIndia. This proposition of law was reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in ‘Anokh Singh v. Punjab State
Election Commission, (2011) 11 SCC 181′.
13. The petitioners as such cannot claim the violation of Article 16
of Constitution of India. The petitioners never had any
absolute, unconditional vested right to continue to hold the
office of Lambardar indefinitely and none of their rights have
been violated with the deletion of Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 16 of the
Rules. Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 16 of the Rules was a mere
concession granted to the appointed Lambardars to continue as
Lambardars till death/dismissal/discharge/ elections. The SRO
impugned was stayed in the year 2017, as a result of which no
elections could be conducted for the office of Lambardars and
in the interregnum; the respondents have made numerous
temporary appointments to the office of Lambardars.
14. The term of office of elected Lambardar under the un-amended
Rules was ordinarily not exceeding 5 years, but now, the
elected Lambardar cannot continue in office in any case
beyond the age of sixty years. This Court has come across
number of cases, where the Lambardars, who despite having
crossed the age of 80 years, had filed the writ petitions
apprehending their replacement.
15. The appointment of the petitioners was not permanent. Even in
case of elected Lambardars, the Government has retained the
power to direct otherwise than continuance of outgoing
Lambardars till election of their successors, in terms of Rule 16
13
(2) of the Rules. The position of the petitioners cannot be betterthan the elected Lambardars. In fact, by challenging the SRO
412, the petitioners have stalled the process of election of
Lambardars. Under the amended Rule 14 (4) of Rules of 1980,
the appointment to a vacant post of Lambardar cannot be made
for a period beyond 6 months.
16. It needs to be noted that a substitute may be appointed by the
Tehsildar in place of a Lambardar who is suspended under Rule
8 or 10 of the Rules. Further, in case a Lambardar remains,
with the permission of Tehsildar, absent by reason of sickness
or any other reason for the period exceeding 6 months or is
unable to perform the duties imposed upon him under these
Rules, a substitute may be appointed in his place for a period
not exceeding 6 months. However, in exceptional cases, the
period of 6 months can be extended with the prior approval of
District Collector.
17. The casual vacancy can be filled by nomination in terms of
Rule 17 of the Rules for a period not exceeding 6 months. This
exceptional power can be resorted to only in case where
unelected Lambardar is appointed in terms of Rule 11 of the
Rules.
18. The amendment has been made in the Rules of 1980 so as to
limit the time period of holding office of Lambardar by a
substituted/appointed/ nominated Lambardars. In many cases,
the appointed Lambardars have continued in the office for
more than decades. In fact, this is a welcome step on the part of
Government in streamlining the appointment / election/
14
nomination of Lamabardars. It is worthwhile to mention that no
orders in respect of removal of petitioners were issued by the
Government and also no elections for the office of Lumbardars
were notified by the Government, but the petitioners,
apprehending their removal, have filed these petitions in
anticipation to stall the process of election which is nothing but
an abuse of process of law.
19. In view of what has been said, discussed and observed above,
these petitions are found to be misconceived and the same are
dismissed. The respondents are left free to hold elections in
accordance with Rules. It is hoped that the respondents would
strictly follow the mandate of Rules while making temporary
appointments of Lambardars.
20. Interim direction(s), if any, passed in the aforesaid matters shall
also stand vacated.
21. Registry to place a copy of this order on each file for the
purposes of record.
(RAJNESH OSWAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
24.07.2025
“Ab. Rashid”
Whether the judgment is approved for reporting: Yes/No.
Abdul Rashid Ganaie
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
:28.07.2025 14:46
15