The central legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership and proprietary rights of the suit land did not vest with the Government in view of the enactment of the Water Resources Act.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash order dated 06.08.2014 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby the status quo order dated 03.07.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, with respect to the construction being raised upon a Talab approximately 13 kanals 12 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 178(old) 320(new), Khata No. 115/120 and khewat No. 1, situate at Thanger, Channi Bye Pass, Jammu, has been vacated. The facts-in-brief as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner along with proforma respondent has filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Subordinate Judge (Senior Division) CJM, Jammu, seeking issuance of a mandatory injunction for removal of concrete plinth/foundation of pillars raised by Respondent No. 6 upon the suit property, referred to hereinabove, and further restraining him from raising any sort of construction. It is averred that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu vide detailed order dated 03.07.2014 passed in the application for interim relief directed parties to the suit to maintain status-quo with respect to the suit property. Against the said order, Respondent No. 6 herein filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu. Learned Additional District Judge, while vacating the order of learned trial court vide a detailed order dated 06.08.2014, directed Respondent No. 6 herein to furnish an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that it shall remove the construction at its own risk and costs in the event appellant as well as proforma respondent herein succeed in the Civil Suit. Hence, the present writ petition on behalf of one of the plaintiffs, namely, Ajay Singh, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 104 of the Constitution of J & K State.

2. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner along with proforma respondent (plaintiffs before the trial Court) own ancestral landed properties in Village Thanger, where Respondent No. 6 (defendant No. 5 before the trial Court) after encroaching upon a Talab started the work of digging and construction of concrete plinth/foundation of the pillars upon the Talab, which is the common property of the inhabitants of the Village, who have been using the said Talab for the last more than 100 years. He further contended that the order of learned trial Court dated 03.07.2014 was interim in nature and was subject to objections of Respondents, therefore, the appeal of Respondent No. 6 against the said order was not maintainable. He further contended that even if it is presumed that Respondent No. 6 had purchased the property-in-question, as per Water Resources Act, Talab/Pond is a water source and every water source is and shall remain the property of the Government and any proprietary and ownership rights over the aforesaid water source shall from the date of commencement of the Act be deemed to have been terminated and vested in the Government and nobody can raise any sort of construction over a water source. He further contended that the Official Respondents have as yet not filed their written statement before the learned trial Court; therefore, the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge has erred in vacating the interim order. He, therefore, argued that the order impugned requires to be set aside.

3. Mr. Sethi, learned senior counsel, on the other hand argued that Respondent No. 6 Parjan Kumar Jain has purchased the suit property from one Sat Dev Sethi by virtue of validly executed four Sale Deeds in the year 2005, wherein he along with his business associates are constructing multi-storied commercial complex under the name and style of Golden Palms and has obtained NOCs from the concerned agencies of the Government. He further argued that the suit land has been shown in the revenue record as Banjer Kadeem and the plaintiffs in the suit have intentionally c