HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Jammu Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Beant Kour & Ors. - Respondent
OWP No. 1625/2013, CM No.2866/2019[1/2019], IA Nos. 2246/2013, 2/2018 and 3/2018 c/w OWP No. 1619/2013, IA Nos. 2236/2013, 1/2017, 1/2018 and 2/2018, OWP No. 1793/2013, IA Nos. 2485/2013 and 1/2017
Decided On : 10-02-2020
Jammu and Kashmir Development Act, 1970 - Validity of allotment made by Pro - Order of mutation - order dated passed by Joint Financial Commissioner with powers of Financial Commissioner Revenue in Revision Petition - Titled Jammu Development Authority Vs - Secant Koru and others is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed by Jammu Development Authority - By virtue of impugned order Financial Commissioner Revenue Jammu has dismissed Revision Petition filed by petitioner and has upheld order passed by Divisional Commissioner Jammu – Held, Be that as it may nothing prevents Board of Directors of petitioner authority to revisit and review its earlier decision and take fresh decisions which are sustainable in law - They are well within their rights to assail demarcation report and avail appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law but as on date position is clear and unequivocal that land which was subject matter of allotment made by PRO Jammu in favor of respondent has not been found to be land belonging to JDA and therefore has no locus stand to call in question either allotment made by PRO Jammu in favor of respondent mutation of ownership rights attested by respondent in favor of respondent premises this Court finds that this writ petition is not maintainable at instance of petitioner authority and same is accordingly dismissed - Be it noted that this Court has not expressed any opinion on validity of allotment made by PRO Jammu in favor of respondent and mutation attested by respondent in favor of respondent purportedly in terms – Order - This petition has been dismissed purely on legal point that in given facts and circumstances petitioner authority has no locus stand to maintain this petition - Petition disposed
JUDGMENT
OWP No. 1625/2013.
1. The order dated 28 th June, 2013 passed by the Joint Financial Commissioner (AR) with the powers of Financial Commissioner (Revenue), J&K, Jammu in Revision Petition, i.e., File No. 250/Jt./FC-AP titled Jammu Development Authority Vs. Smt. Beant Kour and others, is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition filed by the Jammu Development Authority. By virtue of impugned order, the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Jammu has dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and has upheld the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu.
2. The case has a chequered history and, therefore, it would be necessary to briefly trace the course of events that have led to the filing of the instant petition. The petitioner is a statutory authority established under the Jammu and Kashmir Development Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1970?). The petitioner is a body corporate and is empowered inter alia to acquire, hold and dispose of both moveable and immoveable properties. The allotment of land measuring 39 Kanals and 2 Marlas comprising Kh.No.328 min situated in village Channi Ramma, Jammu in favour of the respondent No.1 is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The petitioner claims that the land aforesaid is vested in it, and therefore, could not have been made subject matter of allotment in favour of the respondent No.1 by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu. The petitioner claims that Khasra No.328 of revenue village Channi Ramma, Tehsil Jammu is a big chunk of land measuring 432 Kanals and 11 Marlas and was originally the State land recorded as 'Mehkama Shikar-Gah'. Vide Government Order REV (NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28.01.1973, land measuring 274 Kanals and 11 Marlas out of the aforesaid land was transferred by the State/Nazool Department in favour of the petitioner authority. It is the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No.1 in connivance with PRO, Jammu got a chunk of land measuring 39 Kanals and 2 Marlas out of the land vested in the petitioner authority, allotted in her favour on the plea that her originally allotted evacuee land situated in village Gole Pattan and Chattha Gujjran, Tehsil Jammu had been washed away. This was done by the PRO, Jammu vide its order bearing No.658/92-93 dated 22.12.1992. The Jammu Development Authority, it is asserted, felt aggrieved of the allotment made in favour of the respondent No.1 and took up the matter with the PRO, Jammu. On being apprised that the allotted land was the land vested in the petitioner, the PRO, Jammu invoked suo moto powers of review and cancelled the allotment of the respondent No.1 vide its Order No. 250-54/93-94 dated 14.08.1993.
3. Aggrieved, the respondent No.1 challenged the order of cancellation of allotment in a Revision Petition filed before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. The order of cancellation dated 14.08.1993 (supra) passed by the PRO, Jammu was set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 06.06.1996. The petitioner assailed the order of Tribunal in OWP No. 1072/1996 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 04.02.2000 and the direction was issued to the State/Revenue Department to earmark the area/land which had vested in the Jammu Development Authority. This court further held that any observation made by the Tribunal with regard to the ownership of the petitioner qua the land in question would not be taken as a final expression of opinion. Being not satisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA(OW) No. 333/2000, which was later on dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as withdrawn vide its judgment dated 06.05.2003. This way the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 04.02.2000 (supra) attained finality.
4. It may be pertinent to note that while the LPA was subjudice in this Co
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.