Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Madan Lal And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Others on 5 August, 2020
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
...
WP(C) no.1235/2020
CM no.3717/2020
Reserved on: 04 .08.2020
Pronounced on: 05.08.2020
Madan Lal and others
....... Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms Monika Kohli, Advocate
Versus
Union Territory of J&K and others
......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr S.S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. On the edifice of case set up, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents 3&4 to demarcate their land before transferring the land measuring 06 Kanals falling under Khasra no.886 situated at Village Sunjawan District Jammu in favour of respondent no.2 as under the garb of Khasra no.886, respondents are taking land of petitioners from Khasra no.887, 889 and 890, which is the land allotted to ancestors of petitioners. Petitioners also beseech grant of writ of prohibition, restraining respondents from proceeding ahead with acquisition proceedings or construction activities or taking possession of the land of petitioners without following due process of law and without properly demarcating the land.
2WP(C) no.1235/2020 CM no.3717/2020
2. The case set up by petitioners in writ petition on hand is that they are residents of Sunjawan Tehsil and District Jammu and are cultivating and residing on their land since 1958. It is pleaded by petitioners that name of father of petitioner no.1 and grandfather of petitioners 2&3 is reflected in records falling under Khasra nos. 887, 889, 890 of Village Sunjawan and that the said land belongs to petitioners and prior to them their fathers and forefathers had been residing thereover. Petitioners aver that recently respondent no.5 came to petitioners, asking them to remove their belongings from their houses and threatened to demolish the structures constructed on aforesaid land. Petitioners claim that they respondents have conveyed them about allotment of land falling under Khasra no.886 to respondent no.2 and that now under the garb of handing over possession of land to respondent no.2, they are forcibly trying to demolish the houses of petitioners whereas the fact remains that houses of petitioners are falling under Khasra no.886. It is also contended that Power Development Department has started interfering into the land of petitioners notwithstanding the fact that the said land has been allotted to petitioners, way back in the year 1958. Interference on part of respondents, according to petitioners, has forced them to move instant writ petition.
3. Heard and considered.
3WP(C) no.1235/2020 CM no.3717/2020
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that without conducting any demarcation, the act of respondents is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
5. Perusal of the file reveals that petitioners claim that they are residents of Sunjawan Tehsil and District Jammu and are cultivating and residing on their land falling under Khasra nos. 887, 889, 890, since 1958 which is in the name of petitioner no.1 and grandfather of petitioners 2&3. Petitioners maintain that respondents are contemplating to take the land which they have been cultivating and, on some its portion, they have residential houses as well. It is also the case of petitioners that respondents 3&4 without demarcation of land of petitioners are going to transfer the land measuring 06 Kanals falling under Khasra no.886 situated at Village Sunjawan District Jammu in favour of respondent no.2 as under the garb of Khasra no.886, respondents are taking land of petitioners from Khasra no.887, 889 and 890, which is the land allotted to ancestors of petitioners.
6. First and foremost, as is unequivocal from the pleadings in writ petition on hand, neither petitioners have approached respondents nor have they moved any application to respondents for demarcation of land. Had such been a position, petitioners would have vigorously taken such a plea in their writ petition. In that view of matter, neither laxity nor lack of sobriety in pleadings is countenanced in law. Contentions contained in writ petition on hand do not reflect or portray carelessness on part of respondents. Rambling of irrelevant facts only 4 WP(C) no.1235/2020 CM no.3717/2020 specifies uncontrolled and imprecise thinking and exposes the inability of petitioners to what they want and what they seek. On some places, it reflects a maladroit design to aver particular things which are meant to sensationalise the matter which has roots in keen appetite for hype and sensation. When these facets are described in a nonchalant manner in a petition, it is the duty of the Court to take strong exception to the same and deal it with iron hands.
7. Any direction by this Court at this stage, when it does not come to fore: whether petitioners have approached respondents; whether petitioners have made an application to respondents for demarcation of land; whether respondents have initiated any proceedings for acquisition of any kind of land, would amount to prompting respondents to adopt a way that may not be appropriate to the position obtaining on the spot. In such circumstances, prayer made in present writ petition, in this regard, has foundation and it is bound to flounder, more particularly when petitioners have not even approached respondents or for that matter moved an application; this Court should not comment on the matter and/or pass any direction to respondents because that would tantamount to creating a sense of prejudice in the mind of respondents. The respondents would otherwise take a decision on the application of petitioners with utmost objectivity as per the provisions of law, rules and regulations governing the field, as and when petitioners do so.
5WP(C) no.1235/2020 CM no.3717/2020
8. For all what has been discussed above, writ petition lacks in merit and is, accordingly dismissed in limine with connected CM.
9. Needless to say, that petitioners shall be free to approach respondents with an application for remedy of their gravamen so groused by them in writ petition on hand and it is expected that respondents would consider and decide the application, if any, made by petitioners, on its own merits.
(Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Jammu 05.08.2020 Pawan Angotra Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No. PAWAN ANGOTRA 2020.08.05 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document