Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Jaggu Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. – Respondents
OWP No. 654 Of 2019
Decided On : 29-10-2022
EVICTION - Evacuee Land Dispute - J & K Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act Smvt. 2006, Section 30-A - The court discussed the provisions of the J & K Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act, particularly Section 30-A, which provides for the revisional powers of the J&K Special Tribunal over orders issued by the Custodian General. The court emphasized the importance of disclosing all material facts when invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, highlighting that suppression of facts can lead to dismissal of petitions. The court concluded that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available, which influenced its decision to dismiss the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Jaggu Ram, sought to lease Evacuee land previously cultivated by his grandfather and father. After filing applications for allotment and partition, the private respondents (sons of Lajju Ram) managed to secure an entry in the revenue records claiming possession. The petitioner filed multiple petitions to restrain the private respondents from construction and to quash the allotment order in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had concealed the fact of a prior civil suit regarding the same land, which was a material fact. The court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure when seeking extraordinary relief and noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 30-A of the J & K Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 given the suppression of material facts and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 30-A of the J & K Evacuee's (Administration of Property) Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suppression of material facts by the petitioner disqualified him from seeking extraordinary relief. It reiterated that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially in cases involving complicated factual disputes.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed along with all connected applications, but the dismissal did not prevent the petitioner from challenging the impugned order if legally permissible.
JUDGMENT :
(Javed Iqbal Wani, J.) :
1. Facts emerging from the record of the petitions :
- An application is claimed to have been filed on 27.04.2017 by the petitioner before the Respondent No. 3 for leasing out the aforesaid 01 Kanal land covered under Khasra No. 289 on the ground that the said land was being cultivated by his grandfather initially and after his death, by his father along with respondents 5 to 8. A report is stated to have been sought by the Respondent No. 3 from the field staff in this regard.
- Another application is claimed to have been filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner Revenue for partition of the said 01 Kanal of land amongst the successors of his grandfather namely Basantu. - The Respondents 5 to 8, herein, upon coming to know about the filing of the aforesaid applications submitted by the petitioner in the year 2017 are stated to have managed an entry recorded in the Revenue record in their favour in respect of the land in question showing them to be in cultivating possession of the same.
- Petitioner claims to have come to know about the respondents 5 to 8 having applied for allotment of the land in question in their favour before the official respondents and also in view of non consideration of his application filed for allotment of the said land in his favour, the petitioner filed OWP 654/2019 seeking inter alia therein, direction against the official respondents not to make allotment of the land in question in favour of the private respondents herein, wherein, an interim direction, directing that no allotment shall be made in respect to the land in question came to be passed on 30.04.2019.
- The petition (supra) is stated to have been followed by the institution of WP (C) No. 4403/2019, by the petitioner after the private respondents were alleged to have undertaken constructional activities over the land in question seeking therein, inter alia that the official respondents be directed not to allow the private respondents to raise construction over the land in question. An interim order of status quo with regard to the construction over the land in question was passed therein on 20.12.2019.
- In the reply to the aforesaid petition, the private respondents annexed copy of order No. 117/2018, dated 14.11.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2 having leased out the land in question in favour of the private respondents in terms whereof, the private respondents had been allotted the land in question for raising construction over 04 Marlas of land for commercial purposes and 16 Marlas for residential purposes. Thus, resulting into institution of WP (C) No. 2450/2021 seeking inter alia relief for quashment of said order No. 117/2018, dated 14.11.2018.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. Since in the first petition being OWP No. 654/2019, the petitioner sought a relief of restraint against the private respondents qua the land in question which land has been allotted to the private respondents in terms of impugned order dated 14.11.2018 being subject matter of WP (C) No. 2450/2021, as such, the OWP No. 654/2019, in essence is rendered infructuous and need not be dealt with herein. Accordingly, WP (C) No. 4403/2019 and 2450/2021 would be dealt with hereunder.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions reiterated the contentions raised and grounds urged in the petitions (supra), whereas, the counsel for the private respondents 5 to 8 while res
The court established that a petitioner must come with clean hands and disclose all material facts when invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, and the existence of an alternative ....
Forcible encroachment over land—Efficacious statutory remedy must be availed of before filing writ petition.
The court ruled that claims for proprietary rights under a void act are unenforceable and emphasized the necessity for full candor in litigation.
Compliance with statutory leasing procedures is mandatory, necessitating Custodian General's approval for any land allotments exceeding one year.
principle of res-judicata- Once the proceedings got concluded by judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan (supra), any subsequent proceedings on th....
The judgment established the authority of Revenue Officers to evict unauthorized occupants and restore possession summarily under Section 27 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976, and clarified that ....
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and can be denied due to unreasonable delay in seeking relief.
The judgment establishes the importance of proving actual land allotment and possession in cases of rehabilitation schemes and the validity of administrative orders changing land use.
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
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
