news details |
|
|
| Unauthorized occupant of state land has no right to seek a mandamus against JDA: High Court | | |
EArly Times Report
Jammu, Nov 14: The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that unauthorized occupant of the state land has no right to seek mandamus against Jammu Development Authority (JDA).
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekri held that unauthorized occupant of the state land has no right to seek a mandamus against the JDA to restrain it from fencing the land which is legally vested in it.
The petitioner, if in possession of the subject land, has to establish it before the Civil Court where a civil suit filed by him is stated to be pending. The protection, if any, required by the petitioner to protect his possession over the subject land, if any, can also be given by the civil Court seized of the matter.
The DB observed that the dispute in all these three petitions revolves around land measuring 8 kanals comprised in khasra No. 746 min situate at village Gole Tehsil and District Jammu ['the subject land']. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of subject land after the same was transferred in his favour by one Gurjeet Singh. Indisputably, the subject land claimably under possession of the petitioner is the state land and is recorded as such in the revenue records.
Apprehending his dispossession from the subject land by the JDA the petitioner filed OWP No. 439/2010 wherein the petitioner, inter alia., sought a direction to the respondents not to forcibly dispossess him from the subject land.
The said writ petition was resisted by the JDA. It was the categoric stand taken by the JDA that the subject land was a part of state land which was transferred to JDA by the government vide its order No. Rev(NDS) 46 dated 28.01.1973. It was submitted that the subject land was never owned and possessed by Gurjeet Singh, nor did he have any right or title to transfer it to the petitioner.
The DB after hearing both the sides observed that the petitioner who is in unauthorized occupation of the state land has no right to seek a mandamus against the JDA to restrain it from fencing the land which is legally vested in it.
The petitioner, if in possession of the subject land, has to establish it before the Civil Court where a civil suit filed by him is stated to be pending. The protection, if any, required by the petitioner to protect his possession over the subject land, if any, can also be given by the civil Court seized of the matter. This Court has already declined to afford any protection to the petitioner while disposing of OWP No. 439/2010 and, therefore, there is no point in issuing fresh directions to protect the interest of the petitioner qua the subject land in this petition. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, OWP No. 897/2017 is dismissed. The respondent-JDA may go ahead with the fencing of the subject land, but in the process, shall not evict the petitioner if in possession of the subject land, otherwise than by following due process of law. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
