1. The land which is subject matter of the writ petition was given on lease for a period of 40 years by the Srinagar Development Authority (SDA) vide Order No. 43-GR (UD) of 1990 dated 5th March, 1990 to Reserve Bank of India. The subject matter of the writ petition (for short “land”) was given on lease for raising construction of residential colony and for construction of offices of the Central Government. Vide Order No. SDA/VC/336 of 2011 dated 17th February, 2011 the land was resumed by the SDA and an amount of Rs. 2,90,38,154.75 deposited as premium amount was ordered to be returned back to the Reserve Bank of India.

2. Master plan has been prepared in terms of Sections 7 and 9 of Jammu and Kashmir Development Act, 1970 (for short “Act”) and it is not in dispute that the Master Plan has been approved by the competent authority viz. Government and has been also notified in accordance with the mandate contained in the Act. The layout of the ‘land’ shows that it has been reserved for residential purposes.

3. In order to accomplish the purposes for which the ‘land’ has been reserved in the Master Plan, the SDA issued notification for auctioning of the same on 18th July, 2011. It is this notification which is called in question in this petition.

4. On notice issued, respondents 2 and 3 have filed objections/reply affidavit.

5. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the ‘land’ is being used by the petitioners, who have been permitted to file this writ petition in representative capacity, for performing religious rites viz. as Jenazgah, Eidgah and it is also being used as playground. Learned counsel submitted that respondents are duty bound to provide aforementioned facilities to the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of preamble of the Constitution of India, the State is duty bound to provide aforementioned facilities to the petitioners. Learned counsel was at his pains to explain that the SDA has no authority to change the land use and it is for the Government to take such decision. This contention was raised on the premises that the land is being used for the religious purposes by the petitioners, thus, the land cannot be auctioned for construction of residential quarters/buildings. Learned counsel invited the attention of the Court to Master plan 2000-2021 and referred to Chapter XI, which deals with social infrastructure. Learned counsel submitted that it is the duty of the respondents to provide facilities to the petitioners. Learned counsel also referred to proviso to Section 6 of the Act and submitted that “subject to what has been otherwise provided in the Act, nothing contained therein shall be construed as authorizing the disregard by the authority of any law for the time being in force.” Learned counsel then referred to Section 57 of the Act which relates to development of housing colonies outside the local areas. The said provision casts duty on the authorities to undertake the development of housing colony in any area, other than, the local area and for that purpose, plan is to be prepared with approval of the Government for providing facilities by taking into consideration standards of population density and building density. Learned counsel referred to case titled M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 399 : AIR 2006 SC 1325 and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court carved out a mechanism for dealing with persons who violate the law. Learned counsel also referred to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 2053 to show how secularism has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel also referred to judgment of this Court reported in 2005 SLJ 757 and submitted that since the State has not filed reply affidavit, whatever has been stated by the petitioner in the writ petition is to be accepted to be correct.

6. Mr. S.A. Vakil, learned AAG, appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document