General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini ... vs Satrughan Nishad And Others on 8 October, 2003
In the judgment relied by Ld.
AAG reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 4531 [General Manager, Kisan
Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sultanpur, U.P. versus Satrughan
Nishad], Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition
in regard to Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited Sultanpur U.P, held,
―that the disputed question of fact that the contesting respondents
alleged that they worked in the mill for more than 240 days,
whereas stand of the Mill was that from the day the contesting
respondents joined, in not a single year, the Mill was functional for
a period of 240 days and during the years in question, the
functioning of the Mill was between 45 days to 199 days, cannot be
11 OWP No. 1200/2012 & CPOWP No. 89/2012
decided in the writ petition but by the Civil Court‖. Ratio of the
judgment (supra) relied by Ld. AAG is distinguishable and
inapplicable to the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand,
there are no disputed facts between the parties, as the petitioner has
substantiated his claim that he is absolute owner of the land
measuring 12 kanals covered under Khasra no. 2195 and 2196,
khewat no. 15 and khata no. 397 situated at Sunjwan Tehsil and
District Jammu. Nothing has been placed on record by the
respondents which could demonstrate/prove that they also have the
right or interest in regard to 2 kanals and 3 marlas falling under
Khasra no. 2195 situated at Sunjwan. The report of Patwari Halqa
(Annexure-I) to the objections filed by the respondents even does
not depict/establish that land measuring 2 kanals and 3 marlas
falling under Khasra no. 2195 situated at Sunjwan was in
ownership of one Sain Ditta who donated it in favour of the
respondents. So in my considered view, no disputed question arises
between the parties, and therefore, the argument urged by Ld.
Counsel for respondent is unsustainable under law, repelled,
rejected and discarded.