COURT OF MUNSIFF/JMIC BUDGAM

*************************************
Main File No: 2009/2024
CNR No: JKBG020014102024
Misc Interim Application No. 99/2024
Date of Institution I.A: 12/11/2024
Misc App. Interim C.C: 216/2025
Date of Institution of C.C : 22/03/2025
Date of Decision: 27/06/2025

In the case of:

1. Ghulam Nabi Wani S/o Abdullah Wani R/o Budgam
2. Ghulam Rasool Wani S/o Abdullah Wani R/o Raiyari-Beeru Budgam
3. Mst Sara D/o Abdullah Wani R/o Raiyar-Beeru Budgam
4. Abdul Rashid Wani S/o Late Abdul Aziz Wani R/o Raiyar-Ich,
Budgam
…Plaintiffs…
through Adv J.M Hubi.
V/s
1. Jandad Khan s/o Late Allah Dad Khan R/o Bagh-i-Mehtab, Srinagar.
2. Khalid Jahangir S/o Late Jahangir Khan R/o Bagh-i-Mehtab Srinagar.
3. Asiya Tariq
4. Nafisa Tariq
5. Roheena Tariq
6. Uzma Tariq Daughters of Late Tariq Jahangir Khan
7. Danish Tariqs/o Tariq Jahangir Khan
8. Mst Ashraf Begum W/o Jahangir Khan all residents of Bagh-i-Mehtab
Srinagar.
9. Sahil Khan S/o Muneer R/o Rawalpora Bagh-i-Mehtab, Srinagar
…Defendants…
through Adv Mir Javid, Adv S.A Bhat and Associates.
CORAM: Tasneem Kawoos (KCS Judicial) KCS(J) JK00293

ORDER

1. By virtue of this composite order the court seeks to dispose

off the application for grant of interim relief filed in the

instant suit as well as the application for grant of interim

relief filed by the defendant in the counterclaim. At the outset

1
it is important to mention that the order granting the leave for

filing counterclaim is under challenge before the Hon’ble

High Court how however no stay has been granted in the

matter. The court is cognisant of the fact that the decision in

that appeal shall have a direct bearing on this case however

both the counsels argued that since there is an absence of any

stay order and further the lis is to be protected the court

should proceed with the applications for grant of interim

relief. The Court is presently seized of two applications for

grant of interim relief. It is noteworthy that the pleadings in

the main suit and the counter claim substantially overlap,

both parties having raised almost identical issues of fact and

law. Thus, notwithstanding the pendency of challenge to the

counter claim, the application for interim relief can be

effectively adjudicated on the strength of the pleadings in the

main suit alone. Nevertheless, in the interest of

comprehensive, fair, and effective adjudication, the Court

considers it expedient also to take into account the pleadings

contained in the counter claim along with the reply thereto.

Needless to mention that this shall however be subject to the

Orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the petition

challenging the Order granting the leave to file counter claim.

2
2. Briefly the case of the plaintiff as reflected in the plaint is

that the father of the plaintiffs had purchased land measuring

8 kanals from erstwhile owners; 4 kanals under Survey no

182 min old and new Survey no 948/82 Khewat no. 72 old

new 137 and 4 Kanals under Survey no.182 min new survey

no. 950/82. It is submitted by the plaintiff that were virtue of

the 2 sale deeds from the erstwhile owners the father of the

plaintiffs 1 to 3 and grandfather of the plaintiff no. 4 acquired

title and ownership in the land measuring 8 kanals and the

father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and grandfather of the plaintiff

no. 4 started using the land and enjoyed its benefits and after

that the plaintiffs as per their entitlement used their respective

shares. It is further submitted that the father of the plaintiff

no. 1to 3 exchanged land measuring 3 kanals and 3 marlas

from survey no. 182 min with the father of the defendant

no. 1 who exchange land from survey no. 630/223. Same

was done by means of a registered exchange deed. Both the

parties came in the possession of the exchanged land and the

plaintiff started enjoying the rest of the land measuring 4

kanals and 17 marlas. It is for the submitted that at the back

of the plaintiffs and in a clandestine manner the father of the

different no. one mutated the rest of the land in his favour

3
under Section 4 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and

mutation under Section 8 what was attested in the year 2010

in favour of the defendants and they made no difference as

the plaintiffs continued to be in the possession of the land

measuring 4 kanals and 17 marlas falling under the survey

no. 182. In 2010 the defendants filed suit against the

plaintiffs wherein they sought permanent injunction against

the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 which was a sponsored

litigation to harass the plaintiffs and receive some

consideration. The father of the plaintiff no. 4 appeared in

that suit which was filed by the defendants and the defendant

no. 1 settled the matter with the father of the plaintiff no. 4

and admitted the fact that the land in question belongs to him

and based on the statements defendants did not prosecute the

suit which resulted in the dismissal for want of prosecution.

The plaintiff submits that after the dispute was over without

any interference the plaintiffs continue to enjoy the land

measuring 4 kanals and 17 marlas. It is further submitted that

the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs and are

trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. It is

further submitted that the sale deeds have never been

challenged by the defendants and the father of the defendant

4
 no. one was never the tenant of the land because the land was

owned by Mst Gulli and Nikka Bhatti from whom the father

of the plaintiff purchased the land in question and valid

exchange deed was also executed. It is also important to

mention that the brother of the defendant no. 1 had migrated

to Pakistan in 1947 and he could not be the tenant of the land

and of complaint was also lodged by the father of the plaintiff

no. 4 in this regard. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs

approached the defendants and requested them to refrain

from causing any interference into the suit property but the

defendants refused to accede to the request of the plaintiffs

and the cause of action accrued in favour of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs have also submitted that the plaintiff no. 4 and

his father have filed a counterclaim against the suit of the

different no. 1. It is further submitted that against the

mutation order proceedings are pending before the

Honourable High Court which had been dismissed earlier but

the same have been restored.

3. The defendants have filed Separate written statements. In the

written statement filed by defendant no. 1, it is stated that that

out of the total land measuring 8 kanals, 3 kanals and 3

marlas were exchanged among the defendant no. 1 and Mr.

5
Allahdad Khan and the remaining 4 kanals and 17 marlas

were also under the possession of the said Allahdad Khan and

the same were subsequently recorded in his name under the

Section 4 and Section 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. It

is submitted that in 2016 the plaintiff no. 4 encroached upon

the suit property prompting the defendant to file a suit for

recovery of possession and while the suit was pending, a

compromise was reached and the plaintiffs received some

consideration and gave up their claim over the property. It is

submitted in the written statement that it was only after due

payment of the levy that Allahdad Khan was recorded as the

owner of the 4 kanals and 17 marlas and the defendant no. 1

and all the defendants are the lawful owners and possessors

of the property in question and they have been in the

uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the property. It is

further submitted that the plaintiffs are no longer in

possession of the suit land nor are they enjoying or using it

and it is under the lawful ownership and possession of the

defendants particularly defendant no. one who has taken all

the measures to protect his rights including obtaining a

demolition and eviction order against trespassers. It is further

submitted that although a deed of exchange was executed but

6
it was only vis a vis 3 kanals and 3 marlas of the land and the

rest of the 4 kanals and 17 marlas remained under the

occupation of the Allahdad Khan by virtue of Section 4 and

Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act.

It is further submitted that though the father of the plaintiff

no. 4, plaintiff No. 1 and 2 had illegally encroached upon the

suit land and the defendant no. 1 was constrained to file a suit

for the recovery of possession and during the pendency of

that suit the plaintiffs handed over the possession of the suit

property to the defendant no. 1 under a duly executed

compromise. The defendant submits that initially the father of

the plaintiff no. 4 refused to vacate a portion of the suit

property where he had constructed a tin shed however after

receiving the sum of ₹4,00,000 from defendant no. 1 he

vacated the portion and removed the tin shed. Two formal

agreements were there after executed. It is further submitted

that the mutation under the Agrarian Reforms Act has been

attested and the subsequent transactions are lawful

transparent registered and the Suit land has been under the

uninterrupted and legal possession of the defendant no. 1 and

his predecessors and therefore the plaintiffs assertion that

they enjoyed the suit property without interference after the

7
 dispute was over in 2018 is wrong. It is further submitted that

the suit land in question is exclusively owned and possessed

by the defendant no. 1, it is fully fenced and provided with

active government provided water and electricity connections

which is recorded in the name of the defendant no. 1. The

defendant submits that the relevant revenue records and the

orders of the competent courts affirm that the defendants are

in the lawful ownership and possession of the property and

the plaintiffs are the illegal trespassers. The written statement

also gives a complete detail of the criminal proceedings

which are pending between the parties.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendants 2 to 8 it is

submitted that the written statement filed by defendant no. 1

is adopted and some additional grounds of defence have been

raised. The additional grounds are that in 2024 the plaintiff

attempted to encroach on a portion of the land and therefore

the defendants approached the SDM upon which the SDM

directed site visit and ordered the plaintiff no. 4 to appear

before the court and a complaint was lodged and subsequent

to that complaints SHO was directed to investigate the matter.

An implementation order was passed by the court of the

Honourable Special Mobile Magistrate which was enforced

8
 by the SHO and the demolition of the illegal structure raised

by the plaintiffs was carried on.

5. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants have filed a

counter claim against the plaintiffs wherein they claim to be

the owners in possession of land measuring 4 kanals and 17

marlas in the said Survey No’s and claim to have received the

same under the provisions of the Agrarian Reforms Act under

mutation no. 1042 and 1066. It is further submitted that the

appeals filed by the plaintiffs against the mutations have been

dismissed. It is also mentioned that the plaintiffs have no

right or interest in the subject matter of the counter claim and

the defendants I. E: counter claimants are in possession of the

same however in 2016 the plaintiff had encroached upon a

portion and a suit was filed before the court of the Worthy

Special Mobile Magistrate Budgam and during the

proceedings of that suit, a compromise was reached in which

the possession of the suit property was handed back to the

defendants and the plaintiff had accepted a consideration

amount.

6. It was submitted that due to inadvertent error the said suit

was not withdrawn however thereafter the defendants

withdrew the same. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs

9
 after joining hands in order to demand extra money from the

defendants have started causing illegal interference into the

peaceful possession of the defendants over the subject matter

of the counterclaim and thus have constrained the defendants

to approach several law enforcing agencies for the protection

of their legitimate rights. It is submitted that while

encroaching a portion of the subject matter the plaintiffs have

damaged some portion of the suit property and hence the

defendants claim damages. Accordingly they have sought

injunction and in the application for grant of interim relief

they have sought temporary restraint upon the plaintiffs.

7. In the reply to the counterclaim the plaintiff submit that the

Alamgir Khan is an evacuee and a mutation under Section 4

and 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act cannot be attested in his

favour. Further it is stated that the defendants have not fenced

the suit land and the illegal fencing was done by them when

they misused the order of the Worthy Special Mobile

Magistrate and police also extended their help. It is submitted

that defendant no. 1 has filed a suit for recovery of possession

of the suit property which was withdrawn by him and no

liberty was given to him to file fresh. Hence the present

counter claim is not maintainable and the structures which

10
 are existing on the land are on the 3 kanals and 3 marlas

which are admittedly in the possession of the plaintiffs. It is

again submitted that the mutation under Section 4 and 8 of

the Agrarian Reforms Act is under challenge though

proceedings were earlier dismissed in default however

restoration has been filed in the matter. It is submitted that the

plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and no

compromise has been executed between the parties and the

defendants have withdrawn the suit before the Worthy

Special Mobile Magistrate at their own risk. By filing a suit

for recovery of possession the defendants have admitted the

possession of the plaintiff. It is submitted the Defendant no. 1

has never been in the exclusive possession of the land

because the land is situated at a village and the plaintiffs do

not reside there and they have no exclusive control about the

property.

8. Material Placed on record by Plaintiff:

 Registered gift deed which shows erstwhile owners Mst Gulli

and Nikka Bhari transferred suit property (8 kanals) to

predecessor of Plaintiffs (father of Plaintiff 1 to 3 and

grandfather of Plaintiff 4).

11
 Registered exchange deed to the extent of 3 kanals and 3

marlas in said survey no.

Both these documents are admitted by Defendants ( Counter

claimants).

9. Material Placed on Record by Defendants;

 Revenue records evidencing the mutation under Section 4

and Section 8 of Agrarian Reforms Act of land measuring 4

kanals 17 marlas in Survey no. 950/182 and 949/182 favour

of Jandad Khan, Alamgir, Tariq Jahangir, Khalid Jahangir,

Ashraf Begum (17 marlas in Survey no. 950/182 and 4

kanals in Survey no. 949/182) .

 Notarised Compromises executed between father of Plaintiff

4 and Defendant 1 and Between Plaintiff 1, 2 and Defendant

1.

 Girdawari of 1969-70 : showing land sold by Nika Bhati to

Abdullah Wani in cultivation of AllahDad Khan ( 3 kanals 3

marlas in Survey no. 949/182).

 Girdawari of 1972-75 showing land measuring 4 kanals in

Survey no. 950/182 sold by Mst Gulli to Abdullah Wani.

 Girdawari of 1995-96; Survey no. 949/182 17 marlas sold by

Nika to Abdullah Wani in cultivation of Allahdad Khan. In

12
 same Survey no. 3 kanal and 3 marlas sold by Nika to

Abdullah Wani exchanged with Allahdad Khan. In Survey

No. 950/182 Gulli has sold 4 kanal to Abdullah Wani, same is

under cultivation of Allahdad Khan.

 Girdawari of Year 2007; same as Girdawari of 1995-96.

 Jamabandi Report of 2020-2021: 4 kanals in 949/182 and 17

marlas in 950/182 in ownership and possession of Alamgir,

Jandad and other defendants.

 With the consensus of Ld Counsels for both parties, a

commissioner was sent on spot vide Order dated 27/06/2025

and report submitted the suit property appears to be in

possession of Defendants.

10. Following factual foundational arises hence;

 Both Plaintiffs and Defendants admit Defendants are owners

in possession of land measuring 3 kanals and 3 marlas in

Survey no. 182 min.

 The dispute is as regards 4 kanals and 17 marlas in Survey

no. 182 min.

 According to records, exchange of 3 kanals and 3 marlas took

place in 949/182, remaining 17 marlas remained in name of

Abdullah Wani though cultivated by Allahdad Khan. Land

13
 measuring 4 kanals in Survey no. 950/182 recorded in name

of Abdullah Wani under cultivation of Allahdad Khan. Both

Survey No.s are now recorded as Survey No. 182 min.

According to fresh records defendants are owners in

possession of 4 kanals and 17 marlas; 4 kanals in 949/182

and 17 marlas in 950/182 in ownership and possession of

Alamgir, Jandad and other defendants.

11. Heard Ld Counsels for Plaintiff and Defendant (Counter

Claimant). Learned Counsel for Plaintiff argued that the

Defendant is trying to give an impression of possession over

the entire suit property when actually he’s in possession of

only 3 kanals and 3 marlas under a valid exchange deed.

Learned Counsel for Defendant argued that the entire revenue

record is in his favour and same is corroborated by the

Commissioner’s Report. He further argued that the suit for

recovery of possession stands dismissed as withdrawn and

same can’t be relied on to infer that defendants are out of

possession since during the pendency of that suit some

settlement was done and defendants were put in possession.

Further he raised a question on maintainability of the suit of

Plaintiff in terms of bar under Agrarian Reforms Act and

submitted that a preliminary issue be struck as the claim of

14
 plaintiff is exclusively triable by a revenue court. Ld Counsel

for Plaintiff argued that the counter claim of defendants be

subject to same parameter of maintainability as and when the

issue is struck.

12. Heard and Perused.

 LAW ON THE POINT;

The principle of law relating to temporary injunction during

the pendency of the suit is well recognised in the decision of

the Supreme Court in Dalpat Kumar versus Prahlad Singh

AIR 1993 SC SC 276. The relevant portions of the

observations of the Supreme Court in the case are extracted

here under; It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a

discretionary relief. The exercise thereof is subject to the

court satisfying that. There is a serious disputed question to

be tried in the suit and that an act on the facts before the court

there is probability of his being entitled to the relief asked for

by the plaintiff or defendant. The courts interference is

necessary to protect the party from the species of injury. In

other words irreparable injury or damage would ensue before

the legal right would be established at trial. That the

competitive hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is

15
likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be

greater than that would be likely to arise from granting it.

The Supreme Court further observed; Prima facie case is not

to be confused with prima facie title which has to be

established on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is

a substantial question raised bona fide which needs

investigation and a decision on merit. Satisfaction that

there is a prima facie case by itself not sufficient to grant

injunction. The court further has to satisfy that the non

interference by code would result in irreparable injury to the

party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy

available to the party except one to grant injunction and he

needs protection from the consequence of apprehended injury

or dispossession. Irreparable injury however does not mean

that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the

injury but means that the injury must be a material one one

that cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages.

The 3rd condition also is that the balance of convenience must

be in favour of granting injunction the court while granting or

refusing to grant injunction should exercise sound judicial

discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury

16
 which is likely to be caused to the parties if the injunction is

refused and compare it with that it is likely to be caused to

the other side if the injunction is granted. If on weighing

Competing possibility or probabilities of likelihood of injury

and if the court considers that pending the suit the subject

matter should be maintained in status quo and injunction

would be issued. Thus the court has to exercise it’s sound

judicial discretion in granting or refusing the relief of ad

interim injunction pending the suit.

In subsequent paragraph the Supreme Court further observed

the phrases prima facie case balance of convenience and

irreparable loss are not rhetoric phases for incantation but

words of width and elasticity to meet myriad situations

presented by man’s ingenuity in given facts and

circumstances but always hedged with sound exercise of

judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice.

13. Analysis:

Prima Facie Case:

Mere institution of a previous suit for recovery of possession

cannot ipso facto be construed as an admission on the part of

17
the defendants that they were out of possession. The record,

on the contrary, indicates that the defendants are in settled

possession of the suit property. They have specifically

pleaded that they were put back into possession pursuant to

an out-of-court settlement, under which the plaintiffs—who

had earlier encroached upon their property—accepted

consideration and restored possession. The mutations attested

in their favour under the Agrarian Reforms Act create a

strong presumption in law regarding possession which the

plaintiffs have not been able to successfully rebut at this

stage. The attestation of mutations under Sections 4 and 8 of

the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of the

predecessors of the defendants carries with it a distinct and

heightened evidentiary weight. Unlike ordinary fiscal entries

made in the revenue record, which are primarily maintained

for the purposes of assessment of revenue and taxation,

mutations under the Agrarian Reforms legislation are not

mere clerical annotations but the outcome of a statutory

scheme specifically enacted to restructure agrarian relations

in the State. Under Section 4 of the Act, ownership rights of

absentee landlords were extinguished and such land was

vested in the State, with only the cultivating possession of the

18
 tiller being recognised. Section 8 further provided for the

conferment of ownership rights upon the actual tillers of the

soil upon payment of the prescribed levy. Thus, an entry

under Sections 4 and 8 is not simply declaratory of

possession but is constitutive of rights, embodying a transfer

of title from the erstwhile landlord, first to the State, and

thereafter to the tenant in actual cultivation.

14. In this backdrop, the fact that the suit land stood mutated in

favour of the defendants’ predecessors under these provisions

strongly suggests that the competent authority recognised

them as the actual cultivators in possession at the relevant

time. The subsequent revenue record showing the land as

“khud-kasht” (self-cultivated) in the name of the defendants

further fortifies the presumption that they are in settled

cultivating possession of the suit land. These statutory

mutations, therefore, create a prima facie indicium of

possession, which cannot be equated with ordinary fiscal

entries liable to frequent manipulation.

15. It is pertinent to emphasise that at this interlocutory stage,

the Court is not adjudicating upon the validity or legality of

the said mutations, particularly as proceedings challenging

19
them are admittedly pending before the competent forum.

However, unless and until they are set aside by a competent

court of law, these mutations and the consequent revenue

entries subsist and operate in favour of the defendants. The

presumption flowing from such entries, read with the

statutory background under which they were attested, cannot

be lightly brushed aside. Accordingly, for the limited purpose

of deciding the interim applications, these entries lend

considerable support to the defendants’ case of possession,

even while the rival claims of title and validity of mutations

remain to be adjudicated upon at trial. At the same time, it

cannot be overlooked that the plaintiffs have placed on record

registered sale deeds and an exchange deed which, prima

facie, clothe them with a title that the law recognises and

protects. While the defendants may presently appear to be in

settled possession as reflected in the statutory mutations, the

plaintiffs’ claim is not a frivolous one but is anchored in

legally cognisable title. The competing claims thus bring into

sharp focus the need to preserve both aspects—title asserted

by the plaintiffs and possession asserted by the defendants—

until the matter is adjudicated finally on merits. The Court is

therefore tasked with balancing these rival equities at the

20
 interlocutory stage, ensuring that the plaintiffs’ title is not

rendered illusory and at the same time the defendants’ settled

possession is not unsettled by premature interference.

16. The plaintiffs do place reliance upon the registered sale

deeds in favour of their ancestors, which are undoubtedly

strong indicia of title, but even those are not denied by the

defendants. The stand of the defendants, however, is that

subsequent mutations under statutory provisions constitute a

later legal development vesting title and possession in them.

The plaintiffs’ challenge to such mutations is still sub judice

and they have not brought any material to prima facie

dislodge the presumption operating in favour of the

defendants.

17. It is an admitted position that land measuring 3 kanals and 3

marlas stands exchanged and is in possession of the

defendants. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the

defendants are utilising this admitted possession to create an

impression of possession over the entire survey no., including

the disputed 4 kanals and 17 marlas. However, the revenue

record presently on file suggests that the defendants are

recorded in possession of the said 4 kanals and 17 marlas as

well. The earlier suit for possession filed by the defendants

21
 having been withdrawn unconditionally cannot be read as an

admission against them, absent any conclusive finding of a

competent court on the factum of possession.

[Link] the above backdrop, there are clearly strong triable issues

involved both in the suit and in the counter-claim.

Preservation of thelis, therefore, demands that status quo be

maintained. On the material available at this interlocutory

stage, the court is tentatively inclined to accept the position

that the defendants appear to be in physical possession of the

property. This, however, is only a tentative observation for

the limited purpose of deciding the applications for interim

relief and shall not in any manner prejudice or affect the final

adjudication of the matter on merits.

19. Balance of Convenience

The balance of convenience in the present matter leans in

favour of protecting the party found in settled possession at

the interlocutory stage. Revenue entries, mutations under the

Agrarian Reforms Act, and even the report of the local

commissioner prima facie indicate that the defendants are in

possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs, though armed with

registered sale deeds in favour of their ancestors which

22
 support their claim of title, have not been able to demonstrate

that they are in settled possession of the 4 kanals and 17

marlas presently under contest. In such a situation, permitting

the plaintiffs to disturb the defendants’ possession would

cause a greater hardship and would risk unsettling the

existing state of affairs. The balance of convenience,

therefore, tilts towards preserving the possession of the

defendants until the rights of the parties are conclusively

adjudicated upon.

20. Irreparable Injury

The element of irreparable loss also stands satisfied in favour

of maintaining status quo. Possession of immovable property,

once disturbed, gives rise to a multiplicity of proceedings and

may cause irreversible injury which cannot be adequately

compensated by damages. If interim protection is not

afforded, the party in possession risks forcible dispossession,

leading to a fait accompli before trial. On the other hand, if

the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in establishing their superior

title, the law affords them sufficient remedies including

recovery of possession. Thus, refusal to preserve the current

possession would cause irreparable injury to the defendants,

23
 whereas the plaintiffs suffer no comparable prejudice if status

quo is maintained during the pendency of the suit.

[Link] these observations, Plaintiffs are directed not to

interfere with the possession of Defendants over suit property

and the Defendants are directed to maintain status quo i.e not

to change the nature of the suit property and not to create any

third party interest in the same till the disposal of the main

case. This shall be read in the backdrop of findings recorded

herein before. Applications accordingly disposed off. Be

made part of main file.

ANNOUNCED MUNSIFF/JMIC
27/08/2025 BUDGAM

TASNEEM Digitally signed by

TASNEEM KAWOOS

KAWOOS [Link] +05'30'

Date: 2025.08.27

24