Back
2024 Supreme(JK) 440
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR ANDLADAK H AT SRINAGA R OWP No.1387/201 6 Reserved on: 20.07.2024 Pronounced on: 13.08.2024 Mahant Prem Jai Mishra alias Premesh war Giri, duly appointed Mahant, Shri Bajrang Dev Baba Dharam Das Temple, Sathu Barbar Shah, Srinagar.
…..Petitioners(s)
Through: - Mr. A.Haqani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shaqir Haqani, Advocate Versu s 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through CommissionerSecretary to Government, Revenue Department, Civil Sectt Srinagar.
2. Divisional Commissioner,Kashmir
(Chairman Core Area Development Authority)
3. Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar.
(Collector, Land Acquisition)
4. Director Tourism, Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar 5. Director, Gardens, Parks and Floriculture, Srinagar.
6. Executive Engineer, Garden, Parks and Floriculture, Srinagar 7. Tehsildar South, Srinagar. …Respondent(s)
Through:-Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR,JUDG E HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.A.CHOWDHARY, JUDG
The court ruled that only individuals with recognized interests in property have standing to seek compensation, directing the formation of a management committee for oversight of temple properties.
Headnote:(A) Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act - Compensation for land taken without following legal mandate - The petitioner, claiming to be the Mahant of a temple, sought compensation for land taken by the State for a recreational park without due process. The court found the petitioner lacked locus standi and directed the formation of a management committee for the temple properties. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Locus Standi - The court ruled that the petitioner, being a stranger to the temple properties, does not have the standing to file the petition. (Para 4)
(C) Management of Temple Properties - The court directed that a committee be formed to manage the temple properties and verify any government occupation. (Para 5)
(D) Compensation - The court stated that if any government occupation is found, compensation must be determined and deposited in the temple's account. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims ownership of temple land taken for public use without compensation, previously addressed in a prior writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court determined the petitioner lacks standing and directed the formation of a management committee for the temple properties.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner's standing to claim compensation and the management of temple properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that only those with a recognized interest in the property can seek legal redress, and directed the establishment of a management committee for oversight.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev, J.
1. The petitioner claims to be the Mahant of Shri Bajrang Dev Baba Dharam Dass Temple, Sathu Barbar Shah (temple property) and is seeking a direction on the respondents to pay compensation of the land taken over by the State without following the mandate of law contained in J&K Land Acquisition Act.
2. The petitioner submits that the Shri Bajrang Dev Baba Dharam Dass Temple is owner of landed property measuring 60 kanals and 07 marlas situated at Estate Habbakadal (Chinar Bagh, Srinagar) in various survey numbers, which property has been taken over by the respondents for development of recreational park without payment of compensation. It is submitted that with a view to claiming compensation of the property forcibly taken over by the respondents, a writ petition being OWP No.221/1994 came to be filed by Baba Mahant Ram Kankar Dass, Sole Trustee of the Temple properties, which was disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.06.1998 directing the respondents- State to treat the writ petition as representation and if it is found that the land described in the writ petition has been used by the State for public purpose then requisite steps be taken to acquire the said land under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act and for payment of compensation to the Trust.The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the judgment aforesaid has been complied nor compensation has been worked out and disbursed.
3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents. In the reply affidavit filed by the Director, Floriculture, Kashmir, Srinagar, it is submitted that the development of Chinar Bagh into recreational park was taken up by the Floriculture Department in March 1991 after seeking approval from the Executive Committee, SCADP headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir in December, 1990. However, due to the objections raised by Sh. Mahant Ram Kankar Dass, the work was eventually stopped and thereafter no developmental activity has been taken on the said land. It is further submitted that the land in question is neither under the control of Floriculture Department nor the department intends to occupy the aforesaid land.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner, who is stranger to the temple properties, has no locus standi to file this petition.
5. The status of the petitioner to succeed to the management of the temple and its properties is not recorded in the revenue record. Detailed discussion in this regard is made in the judgment of even date passed in OWP No.25/2018. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, the temple properties have been put under the management of a Committee to be constituted by the District Magistrate, Srinagar. Since the stand of the respondents is that the said property belonging to the temple has not been utilized by the Floriculture Department nor does the Floriculture Department intends to use the same, as such, the Committee to be constituted by the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar in terms of the judgment passed in OWP No.25/2018, shall take over the aforesaid property also under its management.
6. The Committee shall also verify as to whether any property belonging to the temple is still under the occupation of the Government or any of its department and if it is found that any of the government departments is in possession of the property belonging to the temple, immediate steps shall be taken to retrieve the property. In case, on verification, it is found that the landed property belonging to the temple has been under the occupation of the Government or has been utilized by it for public purpose, requisite compensation as is determined by the Deputy Commissioner shall be deposited by the concerned department in the account of the temple.
7. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms.
