Back
RAJNESH OSWAL, RAJESH SEKHRI
Ramneek Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Oswal, J. - The fate of OWP No. 1167/2010 is dependent upon that of OWP No. 177/2007. The facts in both these writ petitions are almost identical. The auction notice dated 09.02.2007 issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 regarding piece of land measuring 5410 sq. ft. comprising khasra No. 665 min, situated at Janipur-Bantalab Road, Jammu has been impugned in OWP No. 177/07 whereas the auction notice dated 28.09.2010 with respect to same land has been impugned in OWP No. 1167/2010.
2. In fact, the petitioner embarked upon a journey in the year 2000 for regularization of his alleged possession over the land measuring 5410 sq. ft. comprising of khasra No. 665 min. situated at Paloura, Jammu, by challenging auction notice dated 28.09.2000 issued by respondent No. 3 and 4 for auction of abovementioned land. The writ petition bearing OWP No. 809/2000 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 11.12.2000 by directing the respondents to take a notice of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA(OW) No. 298/2K, titled, 'M/s Aggarwal Steels vs State of J&K and others' decided on 23.11.2000.
3. The petitioner aggrie
The State largesse cannot be distributed arbitrarily, and the petitioner's mere application for land allotment did not confer any right.
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.
Mandatory prior approval from the Assistant Collector is essential for land allotments under Section 122-C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, making unauthorized claims invalid.
Once government land is forfeited for illegal occupation and vests in State, court cannot direct re-auction or allow prior occupants' participation, as State holds absolute prerogative to use for pub....
Land Acquisition and Requisition – Right of compensation - Where right of compensation of petitioner/appellant is dependent upon proof of his title/ownership as well as on fact that whether land was ....
The main legal point established is that the purpose of land allotment for agricultural activities must be upheld, and the provisions of land exchange under Section 48 of the Act of 1955 and Rule 24A....
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
