The main legal point established is the requirement for the respondents to comply with court orders and re-consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law and previous court orders.

Judgment

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.—Upon joint request of learned appearing counsel for the parties, the instant petitions involving identical issues are taken up together for disposal.

OWP No.758/2006

1. In the instant petition, petitioner prays for the following reliefs: -

A) A writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 & 2 to allot a suitable plot of land for residential purposes on development charges in the development colony directly comes under the control of respondent No. 3.

B) A writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 & 2 to allot a plot of land under Govt., order No. 171-UD of 1984 dated 21.04.1984 as well, as per the decision taken in 34th Board meeting held in the year 1984 by respondent no. 3 and further to comply with the direction passed by Hon’ble Single judge on OWP No. 1049/2001 dated 08.04.2002.

C) Any other writ, order or direction which the Hon’ble court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in the interest of justice.

2. The reliefs aforesaid are being sought on the premise that the husband of the petitioner being a refugee from POK came into possession of land measuring 41 kanal 19 marlas at village Channi Rama, Jammu, covered under khasra Nos. 10, 34, 42 purported to have been allotted to the husband of the petitioner and is stated to have died on 09.09.2005. The said land is stated to have been acquired by the respondent No. 3.

3. It is being stated in the petition that the land so acquired came to be transferred by respondent No. 3 to the Northern Railways instead of utilizing the same for establishment of a Colony namely Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony.

4. It is being stated that prior to the acquisition of land by the respondent No. 3 in a Board meeting being 34th held on 31.03.1980 besides taking various decision it came to be resolved by the respondent No. 3, to allot 01 kanal of land to the ousters of the land for residential purposes followed by a Government order No. 171-UD of 1984 dated 21.04.1984 providing therein for allotment of land to the ousters ranging from 10 marlas to 04 marlas depending on their holdings and to be allotted on the payment of development charges.

5. It is being stated that on account of aforesaid Board decision, as also Government order, petitioner became entitled to the allotment of 02 kanal of land on account of acquisition of 41 kanals and 19 marlas by respondent No. 3.

6. It is being further stated that despite the aforesaid decision and Government order, the petitioner’s allotment of land was denied during his life time despite the fact that the respondent No. 3 allotted plots to the similarly situated persons.

7. It is being next stated that on account of failure of respondents and non-consideration of the representations/requests made by the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner’s husband preferred a writ petition before this Court in the year 1997 which writ petition got dismissed on account of latches and delay vide order dated 08.04.2002, where after a second writ petition is stated to have been filed being OWP No. 1049/2001 claiming therein allotment of plot of land in terms of Government order dated 21.04.1984 on the ground that number of similarly situated persons have been allotted the same, either by respondent No. 3 itself or in compliance to the orders of this court passed in writ petition filed by such persons.

8. It is being further stated that in response to the aforesaid writ petitions the respondents contended that the petitioner stand duly compensated for the land acquired and that the petitioner was not entitled to any benefit in terms of Government order.

9. It is being next stated that the aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 08.04.2002 directing the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner at their own level in the light of view expressed by the Supreme Court.

10. It is being further stated that despite passing of the order dated 08.04.2002, respondents did