The main legal point established in the judgment is that a show-cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action and does not infringe the rights of the party, emphasizing the requirement for a reply to the notice before approaching the court.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners claim that they belong to Nomadic Bakarwal community and almost 60 to 65 years back they along with other 25 families on the assurance of the then Revenue Minister, were asked to settle at Nazami Basti, Roop Nagar, Jammu, and in this regard Divisional Commissioner, Jammu was also directed by the then Revenue Minister that regularisation of the colony, i.e. Nazami Basti, be taken and allot the land in favour of petitioners along with other 25 houses of Bakarwal community. Petitioners also maintain that they are ready to pay the rates of the land because they have raised Pacca structure/ houses, some 43 years back in view of letter dated 4th January 2007 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. It is contended in writ petition that case of petitioners for regularization of colony is pending since 13 years back but till date no concrete step has been taken despite the fact that the Government has regularized almost 20-50 colonies in different areas of Jammu and Srinagar but deliberately left the colony of petitioners because they were Nomadic and soft target and as and when there must be some pressure from the Government, respondents thereafter demolished the house of the people, like petitioners, because they are Nomadic and have no idea to approach the court and nobody listens them.

2. It is also averred in writ petition that Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, on the application of public of Nazami Basti, Roop Nagar, Jammu, including petitioners, sought a detailed report from SDM, Jammu North, who along with Tehsildar and Forest Range Officer visited the area of Nazami Basti and found that there is no encroachment on the forest land by petitioners and other Nomadic families. Forest Department has fenced graveyard by barbed wire, where parents of petitioners along with other Nomadic families, were buried. Forest Department has not allowed the entry of petitioners and other families, which, according to petitioners, is totally injustice with petitioners as well as other Nomadic families. Petitioners further state that they have raised their Pacca houses over a piece of land and their case for regularization of land is pending before the respondent no.1 but till date, despite lapse of 13 years, no concrete step has been taken. Children of petitioners along with other nomadic families, in order to educate them, were admitted in different schools, which is the constitutional right of the petitioner’s children. In the year 2017 an FIR was registered against petitioner no.2 and other persons in which it was alleged that petitioner encroached Forest land in compartment no. 3/P at Upper Roop Nagar, Jammu. Police Station Janipur, Jammu, forwarded communication dated 27.10.2017 for conduct of demarcation of aforesaid compartment no. 3/P. It is also stated that Patwari Halqa Paloura submitted the report that Forest Department had already fenced the land and it also fenced graveyard of Nazami Basti, Roop Nagar, Jammu, and also reported that petitioners and other nomadic families were residents of the area for last 60-62 years. Naib Tehsildar, Mishriwala, reported that Forest Department had fenced the land with barbed wires and Nazami Basti was situated outside Forest area. Thereafter Tehsildar, Jammu North vide letter dated 24.12.2018 forwarded the report to SHO P/S Janipur, Jammu, intimating that Nazami Basti, Roop Nagar, Jammu, was situated outside the fenced area raised by Forest Department, thereby clearly establishing that land claimed by respondents 2 to 4 is not the Forest land. Police Station Janipur filed closure report with respect to the FIR filed by the Range Officer of Forest Department thereby establishing that petitioners’ houses are situated outside Forest land. Despite the fact that houses of petitioners are outside Forest land, Forest Department has issued show cause notice against them. Petitioners assert that it is quite strange that respondents 2 to 4 have not issued show cause notice to other persons o