news details |
|
|
| DB imposes costs of Rs 50000 on petitioner for abusing process of law | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 30: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Sekri imposed costs of Rs 50000/- on petitioner Ramneek Singh who had abused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions for the same relief.
The DB observed that the fate of OWP No. 1167/2010 is dependent upon that of OWP No. 177/2007. The facts in both these writ petitions are almost identical. The auction notice dated 09.02.2007 issued by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 regarding piece of land measuring 5410 sq. ft. comprising khasra No. 665 min, situated at Janipur-Bantalab Road, Jammu has been impugned in OWP No. 177/07 whereas the auction notice dated 28.09.2010 with respect to same land has been impugned in OWP No. 1167/2010.
In fact, the petitioner embarked upon a journey in the year 2000 for regularization of his alleged possession over the land measuring 5410 sq ft comprising of khasra No. 665 min. situated at Paloura, Jammu, by challenging auction notice dated 28.09.2000 issued by respondent No. 3 and 4 for auction of abovementioned land.
The writ petition bearing OWP No. 809/2000 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in terms of order dated 11.12.2000 by directing the respondents to take a notice of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA(OW) No. 298/2K, titled, “M/s Aggarwal Steels vs State of J&K and others” decided on 23.11.2000.
The petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 11.12.2000 preferred intra-court appeal against the same but did not prosecute the same leading to the dismissal of LPA (OWP) No. 167 of 2001 vide order dated 20.07.2002.
Five years after the dismissal of LPA (OWP) No. 167 of 2001, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing OWP No. 177/2007 for quashing of auction notice bearing No. JDA/Site/CA/236 dated 08.02.2007, whereby the land measuring 5410 sq. ft. comprising khasra No. 665 min. situated at Janipur-Bantalab Road, Jammu was being auctioned by the respondent Nos. 3&4 and a prayer was also made for regularizing/allotment of the same in the name of petitioner and also for not evicting the petitioner from the land in question.
The DB after hearing both the sides observed that The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is primarily based upon the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner in the year 1978 for allotment of land measuring 3 kanals and 6 marlas comprising khasra No. 665 min at Paloura Jammu, though subsequently, he has restricted his claim to 15 marlas of land.
It needs to be noted that the application was filed by the petitioner for the purpose of establishing Industrial Unit and later, the intended use was changed from Industrial purpose to residential purpose. It is not in dispute that the land in question is a prime land having high market value as is evident from the bid accepted earlier by the respondent No.3. The issue that arises for consideration of this court is whether merely pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner the land can be allotted to him.
What can be discerned from the law laid down by Apex Court as mentioned above is that the State largesse cannot be distributed in an arbitrary manner resulting into nepotism and favouritism. In the instant case, there was no advertisement for allotment of land and the petitioner on his own applied for the allotment of land and the Sub-Committee of Nazool Department too seems to have entertained and processed the application filed by the petitioner particularly when the land stood already transferred to JDA vide Government order mentioned above.
We are of the considered view that merely filing of an application for allotment of the land in the absence of any advertisement so as to enable other similarly situated persons to participate in the allotment process and the subsequent processing of the said application without further resulting into allotment of the land in the name of petitioner does not confer any right upon him to seek allotment of the land in his favour.
The DB further observed that more so, the petitioner claims to be in possession of 15 marlas of land comprising khasra No. 665 at Paloura Jammu. In the written submissions, it is stated that the possession of the land mentioned above was handed over to him by Nazool Department but in the petition, it is nowhere pleaded that he was given the possession of the land by Nazool Department. In fact there is no pleading in the writ petition as to how the petitioner got the possession of the land.
The desperation of the petitioner to get the land is evident from the fact that initially he sought 3 kanals and 6 marlas of land for establishing Industrial Unit and on finding that the permissible use is residential only, he restricted his claim to 15 marlas for residential purpose.
With these observations, Division Bench is of opinion that there is no merit in the present writ petition.
As the petitioner has abused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions for the same relief, therefore, we dismiss this writ petition with costs of Rs. 50,000/. As a natural corollary, the writ petition bearing OWP No. 1167/2010 is also dismissed. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
