Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Shakti Devi vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 19 June, 2025
Sr. No. 29
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case: WP(C) No.1571/2025
Shakti Devi ..... Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. Mohd. Latif Malik, Advocate
Vs
Union Territory of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :-
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
19.06.2025
01. By this petition recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner
are called in question in terms whereof the respondent No.2 appears to have
directed on 31.12.2024, that since predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner
(Baldev Raj) was only entitled to 33% of the financial assistance under PM
Package for the West Pakistan Refugees of 1947 but has got 100% share.
Therefore had directed Tehsildar Recovery, Jammu to proceed for recovery of
67% of the excess received by him and distribute the same to the rightful
claimants. It is submitted that said Baldev Raj has already expired but the
Tehsildar Recovery (respondent No.3) has initiated the recovery proceedings
against the petitioner without even ascertain whether the said compensation
has fallen to the petitioner or not. That the respondents have initiated
proceedings against a dead person because Baldev Raj has expired on
29.11.2023 whereas the recovery proceedings have been initiated on
08.05.2025.
2 WP(C) No.1571/2025
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ex-gratia relief
was given on family basis and that petitioner is one of the daughter of
deceased-Baldev Raj and the recovery proceedings have been initiated without
conducting any inquiry nor the petitioner has been heard at any time. That the
deceased-Baldev Raj had applied for grant of compensation to the extent of his
share and sworn affidavit that his sisters would be separately laying claim for
financial assistance but the respondents without providing an opportunity of
being heard have proceeded to initiate the recovery proceedings. He further
submits that the whole proceedings on the very face of it are bad in the eyes of
law.
03. Given the material available with the petition, the counsel for the
petitioner is rightly contending that the official respondents have proceeded to
address the grievance of respondent No.4-Leelo Devi for grant of financial
assistance without ascertaining whether the financial assistance was ever
received by the petitioner when it is admitted case that the financial assistance
given to the family of Sangaru Ram, comprised of Baldev Raj and his sisters
one of them being the present respondent No.4, whereas the petitioner is one of
his daughter, who is stated to have not received any compensation. Under the
provisions of the Land Revenue Act proceedings have been initiated against
petitioner without putting her to any prior notice, thus has been denied an
opportunity of being heard. That too she is being asked to part with 67% of
excess amount received by her father, who had already died on 29.11.2023
whereas the order has been passed on 31.12.2024.
3 WP(C) No.1571/2025
04. The record annexed with the petition would disclose that deceased-
Baldev Raj himself had sworn an affidavit before the respondents that ex-
gratia financial assistance required to be made available to displaced families
in terms of Prime Minister Package of 2018 to that he seeks claim of his own
share and that his sisters may not agree to get the claim of financial assistance
with him as the agree to submit their claims separately. In that very affidavit,
he further claims that the two sisters i.e. Lello Devi and Sheelo Devi make lay
separate claim for the financial assistance. Which goes on to show that there
were three claimants for the PM financial assistance and all three i.e. Baldev
Raj and his two sisters were entitled to 33% being the successors of Sangaru
Ram. However, it is given to understand from the order dated 31.12.2024 that
Baldev Raj has received whole of financial assistance to the detriment of his
two sisters. The respondents 2 & 3 without enquiry as to how come the whole
of the amount has been paid to Baldev Raj when he was only claiming share to
the extent of 1/3rd have proceeded to close the matter by addressing
grievances of respondent No.4 without conducting enquiry during the lifetime
of the father of the petitioner.
05. In that background, the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of
being heard, therefore, the petition is disposed of at the initial stage with the
direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to conduct an enquiry as to how come
deceased Baldev Raj has received 100% of the compensation provided to the
family of Sangaru Ram and also in the event of whole share having been taken
by Baldev Raj whether same was succeeded to by both or either of his
daughters and then proceed to address the grievance of Smt. Leelo Devi for
4 WP(C) No.1571/2025
grant of share of financial assistance. Until then the recovery proceedings
initiated against petitioner are directed to be kept in abeyance. The needful be
got done within a period of three months, after providing reasonable
opportunity of being heard to all three legal heirs of deceased-Baldev Raj as
well as to respondent No.4 and other successors of Sangaru Ram as the case
may be.
06. The petition is disposed of as such.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
19.06.2025
Shammi