Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kalyan Singh vs Ut Of J&K on 1 March, 2025
S. No. 6
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case:- WP(C) No. 158/2024
CM No. 360/2024
c/w
CCP(S) No. 199/2024
1. Kalyan Singh, 61 years S/o Lal Chand
2. Swami Raj, 51 years, S/o Lal Chand
3. Bidya Lal, age 59 years, S/o Hamir Singh
4. Jeet Singh, age 55 years, S/o Sher Singh
5. Bharat Singh, age 53 years, S/o Sher Singh,
All R/o Village Gadi, Tehsil Bhagwah, Doda. .....Petitioner(s)
Through: None
Vs
1. UT of J&K, through Commissioner Secretary,
PW(R&B) Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu/Srg.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Doda,
3. The Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Division Doda.
4. Major Singh, Tehsildar Bhagwah, Doda.
5. Block Development Officer, Block Bhagwah, Doda
6. Narayan Singh (In-service), S/o Jagtu, R/o Village
Zanool Bhagwah, Doda.
7. Sewa Singh (Lumberdar), S/o Prem Nath, R/o Village
Klass Bhagwah, Doda.
8. Bhagwan Singh (Contractor) S/o Trathu R/o Zanool
Gadi Bhagwah, Doda.
9. Dharminder Singh (Contractor), R/o Shiva Doda. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG
Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
Ms. Monika Thakur, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. S S Nanda, Sr. AAG
Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER (ORAL)
(01.03.2025)
01. The petitioners through the medium of present petition have sought
the following reliefs:
(a) “Allow the present petition;
(b) Direct the official respondents to immediately stop the
2 WP(C) No.158/2024construction work of the illegal road from Gaddi Bus Stand to
Village Zanool and Klass with immediate effects and deal with the
encroachers under law and further take steps to restore the land
of the petitioners in its original condition, as was existed, at the
time of encroachment.
(c) Direct the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to the
petitioners for damaging their above-mentioned land and trees.
(d)Direct the respondents to produce before this Hon’ble Court the
entire record along with DPR and alignment as well as survey
with respect to the road construction from Gaddi Bus Stand to
Village Zanool and village Klass Tehsil Bhagwah Doda”.
02. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners who are inhabitants of
the remote village Gaddi in District Doda, are aggrieved due to
inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 5 in protecting their
ownership land which is being used illegally by the respondents 6 to 9
in constructing a road from Gaddi Bus Stand to village Zanool and
Klass without legal sanction of any such road and without acquiring
the land of the petitioners.
03. The specific case of the petitioners is that the road is being constructed
on the proprietary land of the petitioners’ without following due
procedure of law and feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners
have preferred a representation in this regard before the respondents 2,
which has not been redressed till date. Further, the allegation of the
petitioners in the instant petition is that the road is being constructed
without any sanction and without issuing any tender and feeling
aggrieved with the inaction on part of the official respondents, the
3 WP(C) No.158/2024
instant petition has been preferred.
04. Response stands filed on behalf of respondent No.1 & 3 who are being
represented by Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG and Ms. Monika
Kohli, Sr.AAG on behalf of respondent No.4. As per the stand taken
by respondents 1 and 3, it is apparently clear that as per the report of
Tehsildar Bhagwah, the proprietary land of petitioner No.1 is not
coming in the alignment of the road from Sanool to Gayool. The
further stand of the respondents insofar as the petitioner No.2 is
concerned is that he has encroached, large chunk of Forest/State land
at Sanool Gaddi where he has constructed shops and khokhas at
Sanool and is running multiple business activities, such as, wholesale
Karayana Shop, Poultry Farm, Chicken Shop etc. Both the petitioners
1 & 2 have illegally encroached large chunk of State land, which is
coming under the alignment of the abovesaid road and not their
proprietary land as alleged. The further stand of the respondents is that
both the petitioners 1&2 have raised illegal structures on the State land
and on PMGSY road.
05. Insofar as the petitioner No.3 is concerned, no person of such name is
residing in Revenue Village Gaddi. The further stand taken by the
respondents 1 and 3 in their reply affidavit is that insofar as petitioner
No.4 is concerned, who is an ex-serviceman and has given an
undertaking in the shape of affidavit that he has not filed the instant
writ petition nor authorized any person to file the same and his land is
not coming in the road alignment nor has any objection with the
4 WP(C) No.158/2024
construction of road in question. With a view to substantiate the same
that copy of the affidavit of Jeet Singh has also been placed on record
along with the reply affidavit.
06. Insofar as the petitioner No.5 is concerned, who happens to be real
brother of petitioner No.4 he has also given an undertaking in the
shape of affidavit which has been duly attested by the Judicial
Magistrate to the effect that he has not filed the instant petition nor
authorized any person on his behalf to cause appearance and his land
is also not coming in the road alignment nor he has any objection with
the construction of road in question. The respondents have further
submitted that so far as the road construction is concerned, the tractor
road has been constructed by the contractors/ respondents 8 and 9 after
fulfilling all the requisite formalities as envisaged under law and the
same stand completed by the end of December, 2023 i.e before filing
of instant petition. Accordingly, Mr. Gupta, learned AAG submits that
no alleged cause of action accrued to the petitioner to file the instant
petition and accordingly he prays that the instant petition is utterly
misconceived, false and frivolous, deserves dismissal at the very
threshold.
07. The response also stands filed on behalf of respondent No.4, who has
been arrayed by name. The said respondent has taken a specific stand
that the land falling under Khasra No. 584 is a proprietary land
recorded in the ownership of Bodh Raj and others and out of the
aforesaid khasra only 04 Marlas of the land from the share of Sh. Taya
5 WP(C) No.158/2024
S/o Amar Singh has come under the road in question, as such, the
petitioners have no locus standi to claim any compensation for the
land in question.. The respondents have further taken a specific stand
in the aforesaid objections that insofar as the land falling under Khasra
No. 1324/568 is concerned, the same is State Land recorded in the
possession of the State i.e Sarkar Maqbooza Sarkar and out of the
aforesaid khasra, the land measuring 04 Kanal-15 Marlas was mutated
in favour of the petitioners vide Mutation No. 1178 under Jammu and
Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, 2001,
commonly known as Roshni Act, which mutation has also been
cancelled in compliance to the directions passed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in PIL NO. 19/2011 titled “S K Bhalla vs
State and others“.
08. The further stand of the respondents is that the Roshni Act has since
been repealed and thus the petitioners on this ground also have no
locus standi to claim any title over the State Land Ms. Kohli, learned
Sr. AAG submits that the petition is devoid of any merit and deserves
dismissal. She further submits that the land falling under Khasra No.
582 is a proprietary land recorded in the ownership of Sh. Musadi and
others and the petitioners 1 and 2 have simply been recorded as mere
occupants as per the revenue record and have no ownership right as
claimed by the petitioners
09. Insofar as respondents 6 & 7 Mr. Vikas Mangotra, Advocate appears
on their behalf submits that they are not a necessary party and have
6 WP(C) No.158/2024
been unnecessarily arrayed as party respondents in the petition and
submits that their names be struck from the array of respondents, as
they have nothing to do in the instant petition. Insofar as respondents 8
and 9 are concerned, they are contractors, who have since executed the
work and this aspect of the matter has already been admitted by the
official respondents while filing the reply.
10. Heard learned counsel for the respondents at length. There is no
representation on behalf of the petitioners.
11. The only grievance which has been projected in the instant petition by
the petitioners is that their proprietary land is being acquired without
following due process of law and accordingly sought a direction
against the respondents to stop the said construction work of the road
from Gaddi Bus Stand to Village Zanool and Klass with a further
direction against the respondents to pay appropriate compensation to
the petitioners for damaging their land and trees.
12. The respondents have filed detailed reply affidavit in which they have
taken a specific stand that no proprietary land of the petitioners have
ever been taken for construction of the road. On the other hand, the
petitioners have occupied the State land without any authority of law,
for which, the State is contemplating to take action, in light of the fact
that the mutation which was attested in favour of some of the
petitioners stood cancelled in terms of the order/judgment passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in PIL No. 19/2011 titled “S K
Bhalla vs State and others“. Even otherwise also, the respondents
7 WP(C) No.158/2024
have taken a specific stand that as per the revenue record which has
been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs that no such land of the
petitioners have ever been acquired or is coming in the alignment of
construction of road.
13. Thus, in the light of the stand taken by the respondents and also in the
light of the relevant record, the very foundation of the petitioners false
flat, therefore, the writ petition which has been preferred by the
petitioners is misconceived, false, frivolous and is contrary to the
record and deserves dismissal.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit along
with connected applications. However, the respondents are at liberty
to proceed against petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, in case
if it is found that the petitioners have encroached State land.
CCP(S) No. 199/2024
15. In light of the order passed in the main petition, no fruitful purpose
will be served to keep this contempt petition alive, which has been
preferred against the interim order. Accordingly, the proceedings in
the instant contempt petition stand closed. Rule, if any, shall stand
discharged.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
JAMMU
01.03.2025
Vijay
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
Vijay Kumar
2025.03.04 02:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link