Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Residents Of Villages Kotli Kala vs Ut Of J&K And Ors on 1 March, 2025
S.No. 27
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. :-WP(C) No. 437/2025
CM Nos. 1006/2025,1007/2025 &
1103/2025
Residents of Villages Kotli Kala .....Petitioner(s)
Ban and Gulathi
Through: Mr. Rupak Ratta, Advocate &
Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate.
Vs
UT of J&K and ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Advocate vice
Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG for
R-1 & 2.
Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG vice
Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG for
R-3 & 4.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
01.03.2025
CM No. 1007/2025
The instant application has been filed by the
applicant/petitioner, seeking permission to pursue the main writ
petition bearing WP(C) No. 437/2025 in representative capacity.
For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with
what has been argued at the Bar, the same is allowed and the
applicants are permitted to pursue the aforesaid writ petition in
representative capacity.
Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
CM No. 1103/2025
The instant application has been filed by the
applicant/petitioner for placing on record the legible copy of allotment
Order No. XEN/REW/R2024-25/1368-73 dated 21.01.2025 in
pursuance to order dated 25.02.2025 passed by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
2 WP(C) No. 437/2025
For the reasons stated in the application, coupled with
what has been argued at the Bar, the same is allowed and the copy of
allotment Order No. XEN/REW/R2024-25/1368-73 dated 21.01.2025,
which has been enclosed with the instant application, is taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is, accordingly, disposed of.
WP(C) No. 437/2025
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant
petition has been filed in representative capacity on behalf of residents
of Villages Kotli Kala Ban & Gulathi, Tehsil Manjakote, District Rajouri
in pursuance to the Resolution filed by the concerned residents, who
are opposing the construction of Niabat Office at Ghambir Mughlan,
which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is the last point
of the area.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention
of this Court to SRO 448 dated 21.10.2014, which has been issued by
the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Civil Secretariat, Revenue
Department in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the
Land Revenue Act, 1996, whereby the Government has altered the
number of Sub-Divisions, Tehsils and Niabats by creating the
Sub-Divisions, Tehsils and Niabats in District Rajouri. Consequent
upon the aforesaid alteration/creation, the Government has defined
the territorial limits of the newly created and adjoining Sub-Divisions,
Tehsils and Niabats, as indicated in the Annexure to the aforesaid
Notification, a perusal whereof reveals that insofar as Sub-Division,
District Headquarter, Rajouri was concerned, the Tehsil has been
identified as Manjhakote (New) Headquarter at Manjhakote, for which,
Ghamir Mughlan (New) Headquarter has been identified as a Niabat at
Kotli Kala Ban.
3. From perusal of the Annexure attached to the aforesaid
Notification, it is also apparent that Niabat Ghulam Mughlan (New)
Headquarter comprises of three villages:-
3 WP(C) No. 437/2025
(i) Ghambhir Mughlan, (ii) Kotli Kala Ban & (iii) Galuthi
and out of the three villages, for Naiabat Ghulam
Mughlan (New) Headquarter, the village has been
identified as Kotli Kala Ban.
4. The aforesaid decision, according to learned counsel for the
petitioner, was taken way back in 2014 by the Government and the
Revenue Department, which was not implemented and it was only
recently in January, 2025 when the respondents have issued the order
of allotment in favour of respondent No. 5, whereby he has been
allotted the contract for construction of Niabat building at a different
village, i.e., Ghambir Mughlan instead of Kotli Kala Ban.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work
has been allotted to the said contractor in derogation to the mandate
and spirit of the aforesaid SRO issued by the competent authority,
whereby, the respondents have altered the said decision at the back of
the petitioner and feeling aggrieved of the same, the instant petition
has been filed, wherein the aforesaid allotment order has been
called-in-question.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and
perused the record.
7. Issue notice.
8. Ms. Sagira Jaffer, Assisting counsel to Mrs. Monika Kohli,
Sr. AAG waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
9. On asking of the Court, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Dy. AG has
appeared vice Mr. S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG and waives notice on behalf of
respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Petitioner to take steps for service of respondent
No. 5.
10. From perusal of the order of allotment, it is apparent that
the same has been issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
from the office of the concerned Executive Engineer, REW Division,
Rajouri on 21.01.2025 for construction of Niabat building at Ghambir
4 WP(C) No. 437/2025
Mughlan in pursuance to e-NIT No. 179 REW Rajouri of 2024 dated
02.01.2025 and the contractor has been directed to complete the work
within sixty days. Thus, from a bare perusal of the aforesaid
Notification, it is manifestly clear that the same has been issued in
pursuance to e-NIT No. 179 REW Rajouri of 2024 dated 02.01.2025
and there is no challenge to the aforesaid e-NIT and the allotment
order is an off-shoot of the aforesaid e-NIT. Even otherwise also, the
order of allotment was issued on 21.01.2025, wherein the contractor
has been directed to complete the work within sixty days and as per
the said allotment order, the work might have started and, thus, it
would not be proper for this Court to stay the aforesaid order at this
stage, which, if be done, will be against public interest.
11. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner has
projected that the aforesaid order of allotment has been issued in
derogation to the mandate and spirit of the aforesaid SRO and the
decision taken by the Government way back in 2014 has been altered
at the back of the petitioner, this Court in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case directs the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to produce the original record, which led to the
initiation of the process for construction of building at Gambhir
Mughlan instead of Kotli Kala Ban on the next date of hearing and also
to have instructions with a view to proceed further in the matter.
12. List this matter again on 07.03.2025.
13. The respondents are at liberty to file the reply on or before
next date of hearing.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
JAMMU
01.03.2025
Ram Krishan
Ram Krishan
2025.03.01 17:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link