Back
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAMMU
Rajnesh Oswal, Rajesh Sekhri, JJ.
Ramneek Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 177 of 2007(O&M) C of W OWP No. 1167 of 2010(O&M)
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Land Allotment - Jammu Development Authority - Government order No. Rev(NDJ) 46 of 1973, SRO No. 263 of 2002 - Roshni Act - Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of M.P., (2011) 5 SCC 29 - Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regularization of his alleged possession over a piece of land. The land was auctioned by the Jammu Development Authority (JDA) despite the petitioner's claim of possession and prior legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate his possession over the land and abused the legal process by filing successive writ petitions for the same relief. The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs on the petitioner.
Issues: The key issues were the petitioner's claim of possession, the legality of the land auction by JDA, and the applicability of the Roshni Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State largesse cannot be distributed arbitrarily, and the petitioner's mere application for land allotment did not confer any right. The court also found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate his possession over the land and abused the legal process.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs on the petitioner.
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 aggrieved of the order dated 11.12.2000 preferred intra-court appeal against the same but did not prosecute the same leading to the dismissal of LPA (OWP) No. 167 of 2001 vide order dated 20.07.2002.
4. Five years after the dismissal of LPA (OWP) No. 167 of 2001, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing OWP No. 177/2007 for quashing of auction notice bearing No. JDA/Site/CA/236 dated 08.02.2007, whereby the land measuring 5410 sq. ft. comprising khasra No. 665 min. situated at Janipur-Bantalab Road, Jammu was being auctioned by the respondent Nos. 3&4 and a prayer was also made for regularizing/allotment of the same in the name of petitioner and also for not evicting the petitioner from the land in question. It is stated that the petitioner is in possession of 15 marlas of land comprising khasra No. 665 min. situated at Janipur-Bantalab Road, Jammu. He applied with the respondent No. 2 for allotment of 3 kanal 6 marlas of land comprising under khasra No. 665 min. at Paloura, Jammu for industrial purpose, as the petitioner was already in possession of 15 marlas of land. The respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 07.11.1978 sought 'No Objection Certificate? from respondent No. 4 pursuant to the application made by the petitioner for allotment of plot measuring 3 kanal 6 marlas comprising under khasra No. 665 min situated at Paloura for industrial purpose. The respondent No. 4 vide its communication dated 11.01.1979 intimated the respondent No. 2 that as per Master Plan, the land that is sought to be allotted is meant for residential purpose only and 'no objection? was given for 2 kanals of land for residential purpose. The petitioner claims to have moved another application before the respondents for allotment of said land for residential purpose but it is alleged that respondents did not take any action upon the application of the petitioner. It is also claimed by the petitioner that he has spent money for developing the said land which was initially in the form of nallah/khad and has also built/raised plinth over there in the year, 1978-79. The petitioner has also stated about the filing of earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2000. It is further stated that after the decision of the writ petition and during the pendency of the case of the petitioner with the respondents for regularization/allotment of land, the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001 (for short the Roshni Act) was enacted, whereby a scheme has been devised for regularization of the possession of the land in favour of the illegal occupants, on the payment of the cost of the land as prescribed by the competent authority. The petitioner further claims to have moved an application before respondent No. 3 for regularization of his
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
