Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2746 (PNJ)

Onkar Nath Dhar v. Union Of India

2010-09-24

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. The petitioner is a Kashmiri Pandit. He is permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir. He has retired as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer from Faridabad and is presently residing along with his family there. The original place of residence of the petitioner is village Dangarpora, District Pulwama in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Due to the continuance of the militancy in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the member of the Community (Kashmiri Pandits) had to flee along with their family from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is a known fact that there was a large scale exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir Valley. It is stated that the petitioner being in the Intelligence Bureau and remained posted in various areas of State of Jammu and Kashmir, his stay in the Kashmir Valley was not safe. It is also alleged that the name of the petitioner was on the hit list of the militants and therefore, he had to flee to Jammu. The petitioner was informed that he had been transferred from I.B. Office Jammu to I.B. Office at Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner shifted his entire family including his parents to Delhi. Thereafter, from Delhi he was transferred to Faridabad where he has been allotted the government accommodation. The petitioner retired on 31.10.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner represented to respondent No.1 to allow him to retain the government accommodation at Faridabad on a minimum licence fee till the circumstances prevailing in the Jammu and Kashmir improve arid he is able to return to his native place. A copy of the representation dated 18.06.2007 (Annexure P-3) has been placed on record. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 13.07.2007 allegedly for occupying the government accommodation un- authorisedly, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The petitioner submitted his reply. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which stayed the impugned order. Since the impugned order challenged in the appeal was passed by the State of Haryana, Tis Hazari Court at Delhi was not competent to hear the same. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which stayed the impugned order. Since the impugned order challenged in the appeal was passed by the State of Haryana, Tis Hazari Court at Delhi was not competent to hear the same. Accordingly, the petitioner having withdrawn the said appeal filed a fresh appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad which has been dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-8). The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad (Annexure P-8) as also the order of eviction dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure P-6) are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court passed in WP (C) No. 11742/2005, P.K. Handoo vs. Estate Officer and another, on 02.08.2006. 3. The petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, a Kashmiri migrant, was also working in the Intelligence Bureau in Government of India and retired on 31.07.2004. At the time of his retirement, he was occupying the government accommodation at Delhi. He also challenged the order of eviction passed against him. The Honble Delhi High Court while considering the totality of the circumstances prevailing in the Kashmir Valley, the home place of the writ petitioner, allowed the said writ petition with the following directions:- " 12. In the result, I allow the writ petition in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of J.L.Koul vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra). Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to retain quarter No.D-845 Mandir Marg, New Delhi, pending decision in SLP (Civil) 7369-97 subject to payment of normal licence fees or in the alternative the respondents may provide alternative accommodation to the petitioner and his family anywhere in Delhi till the pendency of the above said writ petition before the Honble Supreme Court. No costs." 4. The petitioner has also relied upon another judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3809 of 2005, J.L. Koul & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors., on 27.10.2009. This judgment is also concerning the Kashmiri Pandits/ Kashmiri Migrants. In this case also, the petitioner was occupying the government accommodation at the time of his retirement. vs. State of J & K & Ors., on 27.10.2009. This judgment is also concerning the Kashmiri Pandits/ Kashmiri Migrants. In this case also, the petitioner was occupying the government accommodation at the time of his retirement. Taking into consideration, the State Governments policy for Return and Rehabilitation Package for Kashmiri Pandits, Honble the Supreme Court issued the following directions:- "9. In view of the above affidavit/undertaking given by the State and after hearing Mrs.Purnima Bhat Kak, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Mr.Anis Suhrawardy, Ld. Counsel for the State, we dispose of the appeal with a pious hope that State shall take all endeavours to rehabilitate the persons who have been victim of terrorism and till the State is able to rehabilitate and provide the appropriate accommodation to 31 appellants-retirees/ oustees, they shall continue to possess the accommodation which are in their respective possession on this date." 5. The petitioners position is no different from the writ petitioners in the aforesaid cases. Even today, it may not be possible for the petitioner to return to his home State particularly his native place in the Kashmir Valley because of the prevailing turmoil which is unabated. 6. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.08.2007 (Annexure P-6) and 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-8) shall be kept in abeyance. However, the respondents are at liberty to provide alternative accommodation to petitioner on same licence fee at Faridabad. On securing new accommodation petitioner shall vacate the present premises. Till then he shall continue in the present house. No costs. Petition allowed