Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 25]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Ghulam Nabi Shah vs State Of J&K And Ors on 30 July, 2013

      

  

  

 
 
 IN The HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR             
LPA No. 143 of 2011 
Ghulam Nabi shah                
 Petitioners
State of J&K and ors.   
 Respondents 
!Mr. S.R.Hussain, Advocate 
^Mr. Tariq A. Lone, Advocate

Honble Mr. Justice M.M.Kumar, Chief Justice.
Honble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge
Date: 30/07/2013 
: J U D G M E N T :

M.M.Kumar, CJ

1. The instant appeal is wholly ill advised, which has been preferred under Clause 12 of the Letters patent challenging the judgment and order dated 25.04.2011 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court. Holding that residential accommodation was allotted to the petitioner-appellant for a period of one year vide order dated 17.06.2003 (Annexure A1). The aforesaid order came to an end after the expiry of the period of one year i.e. 16.06.2004. It is appropriate to notice the allotment order No.314 DE of 2003 dated 17.06.2003, which reads thus:-

Order No.:314 DE of 2003 Dated: 17-06-2003 Sanction is accorded to the regularization of occupation of Set No.5-T, Tulsibagh, Srinagar upto date and extension in the term of allotment for a period of one year in favour of Sh. Gh. Nabi Shah, Secretary General Jantadal on payment of rent as admissible under rules. However, he will clear the outstanding rent in lumpsum.
The allottee shall execute necessary licence deed with the Deputy Director Estate, Srinagar in this behalf. A perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the writ petitioner-appellant was given extension to stay in the official accommodation for a period of one year on payment of rent as admissible under rules. He was to clear all the outstanding rent in lumpsum. He was also to execute necessary licence deed with the Deputy Director Estates. He continued somehow to occupy the accommodation. However, later on his accommodation was changed and he was shifted to Flat No.9-C Silk Factory Road, Srinagar. Despite requests, no formal order of allotment has ever been issued. He has further claimed that possession of Flat No.9- C, Silk Factory Road was given to him as is evident from communication dated 19.10.2009 (Annexure A-2). Accordingly, it is claimed that he was entitled to enjoy possession of Flat No.9-C, Silk Factory Road, Srinagar in lieu of his earlier accommodation Flat No.T-5, Tulsi Bagh Srinagar.
2. The stand of the respondents has consistently been that the writ petitioner-appellant is not covered by any of the categories contemplated by rules and in 2003 he was given a Flat for a period of one year out of the discretionary quota because he had contested election to the State Legislative Assembly and the situation in the valley was disturbed. Respondents have also refuted the claim that he had any risk to his life at his native village and that his house was set ablaze. Accordingly, he has been regarded as a protected person. The period for which he was allotted accommodation had already expired. In 2009 he was given Flat No.9-C Silk Factory Road, Srinagar provisionally by Deputy Director Estates, Kashmir subject to the issuance of formal allotment order by the Director Estates. When the matter was taken up with the Director Estates-respondent No.2, it did not meet his approval.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and are of the view that the writ petitioner-appellant has failed to show his entitlement to Government accommodation as a matter of right. The claim made by the petitioner-appellant that he is a protected person has no basis and without any substance. He may be a political activist but he does not deserve official accommodation unless he fulfills the requirements postulated by the rules. The writ petitioner-appellant has failed to cite any rule, which may entitle him to official accommodation as a matter of right.
4. Accordingly, we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
5. The appeal is wholly without merit, hence dismissed.
                                (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)        (M.M.Kumar)
                                            Judge             Chief Justice
Srinagar
30.07.2013 
Vinod