The essence of the policy underlying the Government Order was rehabilitation, not the allocation of a specific area for rehabilitation. The court emphasized that the order did not guarantee a specific location for allotment, and the writ petitioner was rightly accommodated in a different residential colony developed by JDA.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. This intra court appeal by the Jammu Development Authority [in short “JDA”] is directed against a judgment dated 09.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court [“the writ court”] in OWP No. 359/2006, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent-Beli Ram [hereinafter called “writ petitioner” for convenience] has been allowed and a direction has been issued to the JDA to allot a residential plot of land in favour of the writ petitioner, strictly as per Govt. Order No. 171-UD/1984 dated 21.04.1984 on the analogy of similar allotments made, in particular in favour of his two brothers, namely, Luder Mani and Durga Dass.

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment urged by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the JDA, we deem it appropriate to give brief resume of the factual antecedents leading to the filing of this appeal.

3. In the year 1975, the Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir decided to acquire a big chunk of land measuring 748 kanal and 11 marlas at Rakh Bahu, Rail Head Area Jammu, which included the land comprised in khasra no. 40 purportedly claimed to be in possession firstly of their father and thereafter with the writ petitioner and his two brothers.

4. Land acquisition process was initiated which ultimately culminated into passing of an award and payment of compensation to the interested persons whose lands had come under said acquisition.

5. However, it was decided by the then State Govt. that 38 families who were allottees/occupants of the land so acquired were required to be rehabilitated in addition to the payment of compensation. Accordingly, vide Government Order No. 171-UD/1984 dated 21.04.1984, sanction was accorded to the JDA for the utilization of 37 kanals of land supplemented by 15% of the area for construction of the roads situate between the Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu for rehabilitation of identified 38 families evicted from the Rail Head Commercial Complex Area. This Govt. Order also prescribed the scales of allotment of the land proportionate to the land from where such families were to be displaced.

6. It seems that the JDA prepared a list of these 38 families and, accordingly, allotted them the earmarked land proportionate to the land which had been acquired from their holding/possession.

7. Two brothers of the writ petitioner namely Luder Mani and Durga Dass, who were held and found to be in actual physical possession of the land acquired from khasra no. 40 were allotted a plot of land measuring one kanal out of the 37 kanals of land so reserved in the area and now known as “Commercial Complex Rail Head Area, Jammu” in terms of an allotment Order bearing no. JDA/KWS/394-95 dated 31.01.1989.

8. The writ petitioner, as it seems, was not and did not emerge in the picture at the relevant point of time when the allotment of one kanal plot of land was made in favour of his two brothers. The writ petitioner, later on, approached the JDA for allotment of one kanal plot of land in his favour at the Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu on the ground that he too was a allottee/occupant of the subject land in khasra no. 40 along with his two brothers and, therefore, could not have been ignored in the matter of allotment of land provided by the Government for rehabilitation of the displaced families.

9. Having failed to persuade JDA to allot him a separate plot of land, the writ petitioner filed OWP No. 54/1997 in which he prayed for a writ of mandamus to the JDA to allot him one kanal plot of land at Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu. The entire claim of the writ petitioner was based on his purported share in the land in khasra no. 40 which had been acquired and taken possession of from his two brothers above named. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and he was held entitled to his share in the land, by the writ court.

10. The writ court, while allowing OWP No. 54/1997 vide its ju