Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—Petitioner seeks a direction against respondent No.4 to 9 declaring their attempts to take over the possession of the property comprising house with land underneath and appurtenant thereto measuring 12 kanals 10 marlas falling under Khasra No.2909/1500 situated at Saidpora Herpora Tehsil and District Shopian, as illegal and unlawful. A further direction restraining the said respondents from demolishing and/or interfering in petitioner’s peaceful enjoyment, use and occupation of the aforesaid property, has also been sought.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in lawful possession and occupation of land measuring 12 kanals 10 marlas falling under Khasra No.2909/1500 situated at Herpora Saidapora Shopian, in terms of judgment and order dated 18.04.2002 passed by Collector, Agrarian Reforms, Shopian, in exercise of powers vested in him under Agrarian Reforms Act. It is averred that previously, petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing OWP No.499/2010 and an interim direction was issued by this Court in the said petition on 26.05.2010 whereby respondents were directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question.

3. According to the petitioner, during pendency of aforesaid writ petition, the respondents forcibly took over possession of the property in question compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition bearing No.303/2010 against respondent No.4 to 9. In terms of the orders passed by this Court in the said contempt petition, a Commissioner was appointed for spot inspection and pursuant to the report submitted by the Commissioner, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 09.09.2015, whereby Deputy Commissioner, Shopian, was directed to get the land in question demarcated in presence of Divisional Forest Officer, Shopian, and the petitioner. It was further provided that demarcation of the land will have the effect of settling the rights of the parties.

4. According to petitioner, in pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court, a team of officers headed by respondent No.3 undertook demarcation of the land in question in presence of respondent No.6, and a report was submitted by the said team on 22.03.2016, whereby title of the petitioner in respect of the land in question was confirmed. Another team of officers is stated to have been constituted to conduct fresh demarcation of the land in question and even after fresh demarcation, ownership of the petitioner over the land in question was confirmed.

5. It is averred by the petitioner that in spite of these reports, the land in question continued to be encroached upon by respondent No.4 to 9, as a result of which petitioner took it upon himself to remove the said encroachment and he continues to be in lawful possession of the property in question till date and he has also constructed a small hutment/shed over there. It is further averred that the respondents 4 to 9 continued with their attempts to interfere in the petitioner’s lawful possession over the property in question which has compelled the petitioner to file the instant writ petition.

6. Respondent No.1 and 4 to 9 have resisted the writ petition by filing a reply thereto. In their reply respondents have disputed possession of the petitioner over the land in question and it has been claimed that the said land falls within demarcated forest as is clear from the GT Sheet Map from General Survey of India. It is further claimed that the order and decree obtained by the petitioner, on which he is basing his claim, is a nullity as the same has been obtained in exparte without affording any opportunity to the Forest Department to defend its case. It is averred that the present case is a pure and simple case of encroachment upon forest land which is lawfully owned and possessed by the respondents. Regarding the demarcation reports submitted by the revenue authorities, it has been submitted by the respondents that the dema