Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 88 (JK)

Village Of Frisluna v. State Of J. &K.

2000-05-08

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2000
1. Petitioners, residents of village Frisluna of Tehsil Pahalgam of District Anantnag are seeking mandamus to effectuate their cattle grazing rights in an area of land recorded as such in the village and prohibition to restrain respondents from interfering with grazing rights of the villagers. 2. Petitioners aver that they and their forefathers have been earning their livelihood by rearing cattle in Kacharai land re-corded as gairmumkin pahad/kohistan and Banjri Qadeem within the boundaries of village Frisluna. The land running in hundreds of kanals is used as grazing land by their cattle from time immemorial and revenue authorities even so acknowledged it in records. Bakerwal (Nomad) who come in pursuant of pastures to feed their cattle, have without any right or authority occupied a part of land and are in litigation with villagers before the revenue authorities/agencies. Instead of the Bakerwal being evicted, the Rashtriya Riffles Battalion located in the area has intervened on behalf of bakerwals and are harassing villagers and are not allowing them to graze their cattle and thereby depriving them from khancharai rights. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 and 7 have filed reply through respondent No. 7. Besides pursuant to directions of this court at motion stage on 09-07-1998, Dy Commissioner Anantnag respondent No. 7 has also filed compliance report cum statement of facts in the matter, which is also available on record. Respondents 5 and 6 have not filed reply despite opportunity. 4. Heard. At the outset it may be pointed out that though the petition is described as representative in character and motion under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC has been moved, but all the same the legal requirements for such a petition have not been complied with in full. Besides the petition is ill drafted in so far as respondent No. 7 is shown as a nomad (Bakerwal} with whom the petitioners say that they are at cross roads and in litigation, while from the petition it is seen that infact the respondent No. 7 is Dy. Commissioner Anantnag and the said Bakerwal has neither been named nor made a party to the petition. Notwithstanding that over four paras have been devoted to villagers dispute and litigation with the said Bakerwal, the name, address and particulars of bakerwal(s) is not at all found in the petition. The petition is thoroughly defective on this count. 5. Commissioner Anantnag and the said Bakerwal has neither been named nor made a party to the petition. Notwithstanding that over four paras have been devoted to villagers dispute and litigation with the said Bakerwal, the name, address and particulars of bakerwal(s) is not at all found in the petition. The petition is thoroughly defective on this count. 5. Now coming to the merits of the petition, even at the threshold, it is seen that the petitioners have right to graze cattle and their Kacharai rights are recorded in the revenue records over the land in question. Bakerwals through one Mohammad Shafi Bakerwal is in litigation and running a dispute with villagers over pasture and grazing rights in the land (annexure-P3 to P7). At the initial stage the Court asked the District Magistrate-cum-Development Commissioner Anantnag œto take measures in controlling the situation�. The Dy. Commissioner-respondent No. 7 in the compliance report/ statement of fact states that through the revenue officers and revenue staff as also the local police station, the matter has been amicably settled. The khanabadoshes and the villagers have compromised and compounded the differences and have drawn the memo in writing and the SHO and Naib Tehsildar have infact signed and attested the same. The demarcation has been carried out and both parties have been shown their area of pasture land and the parties have settled down to exercise their pasture and kahcharai rights in their respective specified and demarcated area. Even copies of the memo and reports have been placed on record. Besides respondent No. 7 has on affidavit in reply submitted that the petitioners rights are not being violated on spot. Respondents have taken required steps as per record. The allegation against the army is baseless, in so far as the armys presence in the area is must, as the land falls within the pathway and road leading to Amarnath. Laying of cordons and searches in the area is part of security set up. Mr. Bhan submits that the respondents 5 and 6 have not taken sides and instead they are concentrating on their duties to provide security and safety to Yatries and others, who visit Pahalgam and Amarnath cave. Seen as above, petitioners case either for mandamus or prohibition as prayed for is not at all made out. Even prima facie case is not made out to merit admittance of petition to hearing. Seen as above, petitioners case either for mandamus or prohibition as prayed for is not at all made out. Even prima facie case is not made out to merit admittance of petition to hearing. In result, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.