SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(J&K) 153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J.
Choudhary Gharu Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State and others - Respondent
OWP nos. 1566, 151, 661 of 2005 & 1010 of 2007
Decided On : 22-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr Ashok Sharma, Mr K. L. Pandita, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Advocate General with Mr Ahtisham Bhat, GA

Unauthorized occupants do not have enforceable rights to continue in government accommodation, and the allotment of quarters to public servants can be cancelled at any time.

Headnote:

Unauthorized Occupants - Government Accommodation - J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1988, Section 4 and 5(1) - OWP no. 1566/2015, OWP no. 151/2005, OWP no. 661/2005, OWP no. 1010/2017

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were active mainstream political activists, sought to challenge the cancellation of their government accommodation allotments and sought writs of prohibition and mandamus to prevent eviction, citing threat perception and adverse effects on their children's education.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants and did not have enforceable rights to continue in the government accommodation. It emphasized that the allotment of quarters to public servants can be cancelled at any time, and the petitioners' actions infringed on the rights of others waiting for accommodation.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had the right to continue in the government accommodation despite the cancellation of their allotments.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized occupants cannot continue to occupy public premises beyond the permissible period, and emphasized the finite nature of administrative privileges. It also highlighted the duty of the respondents to provide accommodation to current office bearers and the need to vacate premises upon ceasing to hold public office.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were held to be without merit and dismissed. The court directed the eviction of the petitioners from the government accommodation and instructed compliance with the Jammu and Kashmir Estates Department Regulations for allotment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all the petitions call for adjudication of somewhat similar issue, therefore, these are taken up together and this judgment shall govern all.

OWP no. 1566/2015

2. Petitioner, Choudhary Gharu Ram, has filed the instant writ petition to question and seek quashment of the Notice nos. DDE/J/475 dated 16.6.2015; DDE/J/452 dated 25.6.2015; & DDE/J/460 dated 4.7.2015, for short impugned notices, issued in terms of Section 4 and 5 (1) of the J&K Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act 1988, for short Act, with a further prayer for a writ of prohibition to the effect that respondents be restrained from evicting the petitioner and his family from Govt. quarter no. 24-B Gandhi Nagar, Jammu inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner, has been an active mainstream political activist and has a threat perception, therefore, was allotted the said government accommodation at Jammu and its cancellation would make him vulnerable to militant attacks; and that petitioner has been picked out of the bunch of similarly placed persons for such treatment.

3. Upon notice respondents appeared but did not file any reply.

OWP no. 151/2005

4. In the instant petition, the petitioner challenges the Government Order No. 151-Est of 2004 dated 31.08.2004, and the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Jammu, in case titled Abdul Majid Mir v. State &Ors., for short impugned orders, by virtue of which the allotment of Government Quarter No. 137-W, Poonch House, Talab Tiloo, Jammu, made in favour of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against such cancellation has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, respectively, inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner, has been an active mainstream political activist and has a threat perception, therefore, was allotted the said government accommodation at Jammu and its cancellation would make him vulnerable to militant attacks; and that petitioner has been picked out of the bunch of similarly placed persons for such treatment.

5. Upon notice, respondents appeared and filed their objections. In the reply it is stated that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the quarter in question as the allotment made in favour of petitioner has expired and it has not been extended or renewed. It is further stated therein that the case of the petitioner being a migrant can be considered by the Relief and Rehabilitation Department. There is, however, no counter to the petition after its admission.

OWP no. 661/2005

6. In this petition, the petitioner, Sheikh Mohammad Rafi, seeks a writ of mandamus to the effect that respondents 3 and 4 be commanded not to evict the petitioner from the government accommodation on 132 Block-V, Poonch House, Talab Tiloo, Jammu, being used and occupied by the petitioner, inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner, has been an active mainstream political activist and has a threat perception, therefore, was provided the government accommodation at Jammu and its allotment to some other person would make him vulnerable to militant attacks and no advance notice for eviction from the said Government quarter has been issued to the petitioner. A writ of prohibition to the same extent has also been prayed for.

7. Upon notice respondents appeared but did not file the objections.

OWP no. 1010/2017

8. The instant petition is also filed on the same lines as the OWP no. 151/2005, with a difference of only the impugned order being Order no. 343-Est of 2007 dated 24.10.2007 pertaining to Flat no. 86-Talab Tiloo, Block-Q, Poonch House, Jammu.

9. Having regard to the nature of the controversy coupled with the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. Learned counsels for the petitioners’ submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and the same requires to be quashed as the petitioners have been discriminated because the other similarly plac











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top