The appellant/petitioner authority must establish locus standi by demonstrating that the subject land was part of the land transferred to them by the State to challenge the allotment and mutation.

JUDGMENT :

Magrey, J.

Through Virtual Mode

1. This intra Court appeal, under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment dated 10th of February, 2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No.1625/2013, whereby the petition of the appellant/ petitioner authority stands dismissed alongwith two other Writ petitions, being OWP Nos. 1619/2013 and 1793/2013.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal, as come to the limelight from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that the appellant/ petitioner authority claims that the land measuring 39 Kanals and 02 Marlas, comprising Kh. No. 328 Min and situated in Village Channi, Rama, Jammu, 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 appellant/petitioner authority claims that Khasra No.328 of revenue village Channi Rama, 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”. In terms of Government Order No. REV (NDJ) 46 of 1973 dated 28th of January, 1973, out of the aforesaid land, 274 Kanals and 11 Marlas was transferred by the State/Nazool Department in favour of the appellant/petitioner authority. The appellant/ petitioner authority alleged that respondent No.1, in connivance with the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu, got a chunk of land measuring 39 Kanals and 02 Marlas out of the land vested in the appellant/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 Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu, vide its order bearing No.658/92-93 dated 22nd of December, 1992. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Jammu Development Authority took up the matter with the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu and, accordingly, the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu invoked suo moto powers of review and cancelled the allotment of the respondent No.1 in terms of order No. 250-54/93-94 dated 14th of August, 1993. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 challenged the order of cancellation of allotment by medium of a Revision Petition filed before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, wherein the order of cancellation dated 14th of August, 1993 (supra) passed by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu was set aside by order dated 6th of June, 1996. The appellant/ petitioner authority assailed the order of the Tribunal in OWP No. 1072/1996, which petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 4th of February, 2000 with the direction to the State/Revenue Department to earmark the area/land which had vested in the Jammu Development Authority. It was further ordered by the learned Single Judge that any observation made by the Tribunal with regard to the ownership of the appellant/ petitioner authority qua the land in question would not be taken as a final expression of opinion. Being aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 filed Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA(OW) No. 333/2000, which was dismissed by the Division Bench as withdrawn vide judgment dated 6th of May, 2003. During the pendency of the aforesaid LPA, the respondent No.1 got the mutation of ownership attested from the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2, in turn and vide Mutation No.1562 dated 31st of May, 2001, conferred proprietary rights upon respondent No.1 purportedly in terms of the Government Order No. 254-C of 1965, thereby making it axiomatic that the respondent No.1 withdrew the LPA filed by her only after she had been conferred the ownership rights qua the subject land in terms of Mutation No.1562 dated 31st of May, 2001 attested by the respondent No.2. The appellant/ petitioner authority challenged the Mutation No.1562 dated 31st of May, 2001 (supra) before the