Jammu & Kashmir High Court
(Through Video Conferencing) vs State Of J&K And Others on 4 December, 2020
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajesh Bindal
Supplementary-1 List
Sr. No. 102
After Notice Causelist
Sr. Nos. 202 & 203
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
CM No. 6342/2020
CM No. 4518/2020
CM No. 4519/2020 in
PIL No. 19/2011
(Through Video Conferencing)
.....Petitioner(s)
Prof. S. K. Bhalla
Through :- Mr. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate
(On video conference from Jammu)
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for
applicant in CM No. 6342/2020
(On video conference from Jammu)
V/s
State of J&K and others .....Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG.
(On video conference from Jammu)
Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG
(On video conference from Jammu)
Mr. Shaleen Kabra, Home
Secretary, Govt. of UT of
Jammu and Kashmir is present.
(ON video conference from Jammu)
WP(C) PIL No. 15/2019
(Through Video Conferencing)
Jammu and Kashmir Peoples Forum ...Petitioner(s)
Through: None.
v/s
State of J&K and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. H. Shah, AAG.
(On video conferencing from office at Srinagar)
CPLPA No.20/2018
(Through Video Conferencing)
Abdul Hamid Dandroo and others ...Petitioner(s)
2 CM Nos. 4518, 4519 & 6342/2020
in PIL No.19/2011
Through: None.
v/s
Syed Abid Rasheed and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. H. Shah, AAG.
(On video conferencing from office at Srinagar)
LPAOW No. 68/2018
(Through Video Conferencing)
Ghulam Rasool Mistri ...Appellant(s)
Through: None.
v/s
State of J&K and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. H. Shah, AAG.
(On video conferencing from office at Srinagar)
LPAOW No. 9k2/2018
IA No. 1/2018
(Through Video Conferencing)
Abdul Hamid Dandroo and others ...Appellant(s)
Through: None.
v/s
State of J&K and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. H. Shah, AAG.
(On video conferencing from office at Srinagar)
LPAOW No. 118/2018
IA No. 1/2018
(Through Video Conferencing)
Abdul Hamid Dandra and others ...Appellant(s)
Through: None.
v/s
Srinagar Municipal Corporation and others .... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. N. H. Shah, AAG.
(On video conferencing from office at Srinagar)
3 CM Nos. 4518, 4519 & 6342/2020
in PIL No.19/2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
(on Video Conference from residence at Jammu)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, JUDGE
(on Video Conference from residence at Jammu)
ORDER
04.12.2020 CM No. 6342/2020 (for impleadment) in PIL No.19/2011
1. Thirty (30) persons have filed this application seeking impleadment submitting that following nine writ petitions have been rendered infructuous in view of judgment dated 9th October 2020 passed in IA No. 48/2014 (in PIL no.19/2011, Prof. S. K. Bhalla v. State of J&K and others):
"
S. No. Case Number Case Title 1 OWP No. 439/2010 Manmohan Singh v. State of J&K and Ors. 2. CPOWP No.28/2011 Manmohan Singh v. Vinod Sharma & Anr. 3. OWP No. 333/2011 Manmohan Singh v. State of J&K and Ors. 4. OWP No. 876/2014 Kuldeep Kumar and anr. v. State of J&K and Ors. 5. OWP No. 1539/2014 Manmohan Singh v. State of J&K and Ors. 6. OWP No. 1782/2014 Swarn Singh v. State of J&K and ors. 7. OWP No. 1139/2014 Kuldeep Kumar and anr. v. State of J&K and Ors. 8. OWP No. 705/2017 Balwant Raj v. State of J&K and ors. 9. OWP No. 897/2017 S. Manmohan Singh V. State of J&K and Ors. "
2. The applicants claim to be allotees of various plots of land situated in the Gole Gujral Housing Colony, Jammu by virtue of allotments effected pursuant to notification dated 15th July 2014 effected by the Jammu Development Authority in Newspapers inviting applications for allotment of plots.
3. The applicants submit that after completion of a process of allotment of draw of lots, they stand allotted various plots. The applicant nos. 2, 6, 9 and 11 who stand allotted plots sizes 40 x 75 for which they have paid an amount of Rs.28,08,000/- to the Jammu Development Authority; others like applicant 4 CM Nos. 4518, 4519 & 6342/2020 in PIL No.19/2011 no. 13 have paid an amount of Rs.18,73,475/-; applicant no.17 has paid Rs.9,87,500/- and applicant no. 21 has paid an amount of Rs.8,82,500/- for different sized plots. Rest of the applicants have paid an amount of Rs.14,10,000/- each for plots of 30 x 60 in the year 2015-17. Lease deeds stand executed in favour of these applicants.
4. Despite execution of these conveyances, it is complained that the Jammu Development Authority had not handed over the possession on the pretext that these writ petitions are pending.
5. By separate orders passed by us in the main writ petition, we have clubbed all of the above writ petitions and are proceeding to hear these.
6. We have noted the facts brought out which shows the conduct of the Jammu Development Authority which appears to have not taken any steps towards disposal of these writ petitions for these long years.
7. So far as the present proceedings are concerned, the applicants are neither necessary nor proper party for effective adjudication of the issues under consideration.
This application is disposed of with the above observations. CM Nos. 4518 & 4519/2020 in PIL No.19/2011
8. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
PIL No. 19/2011
9. An adjournment is requested by Mr. Shaleen Kabra, Home Secretary, Govt. of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to make submissions in the matter.
10. We make it clear that because of the enactment being declared unconstitutional, the position as on date of coming into force of this Act or on 5 CM Nos. 4518, 4519 & 6342/2020 in PIL No.19/2011 the date of transfers under the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 (Roshni Act) would stand restored. To elucidate, if on these dates, an individual was in occupation of land and if the land in question had been originally given on leases which are expired, then the person would be occupying under the expired lease.
11. No benefit of possession or claim of any kind shall enure in favour of any individual because of an order under the Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001 or because continuation of occupation/possession on account of such order.
12. Once a person had made a claim under the Roshni Act, no benefit or claim of adverse possession would flow in favour of the individual on account of possession under the Roshni Act.
13. It is directed that all litigations involving any action taken by the authorities pursuant to or after our judgment dated 9th October 2020 in IA No. 48/2014 (in PIL No. 19/2011, Prof S. K. Bhalla v. State of J&K and others) or in any manner relating to the Roshni Act and Scheme shall be listed before the bench hearing this public interest litigation.
List this petition along with connected petitions on 7th December 2020. Enquiries/Investigation by the CBI
14. Mr. S. S. Ahmed, ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation was required to file periodic reports. However, the commencement of the time has not been set. Certain other aspects are brought to our notice.6 CM Nos. 4518, 4519 & 6342/2020
in PIL No.19/2011
15. In view thereof, we further clarify that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) shall in its enquiry and investigation specifically look into the following:
(i) Encroachments starting with the largest encroachments and then coming down to the smaller.
(ii) Dishonesty/fraud/mala fide in the making of the policy/enactment of law/framing of rules.
(iii) Dishonesty or mala fide implementation of the Roshni Act.
(iv) Outright fraud in transactions.
(v) The CBI shall ensure that first preliminary report is filed in court
on 21st December, 2020, in a sealed cover.
List this matter on 21st December 2020.
(RAJESH BINDAL) (GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
04.12.2020
Raj kumar
RAJ KUMAR
2020.12.07 17:43
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document