Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 466 (JK)

Mohammad Ramzan Bhat v. State & Ors.

2011-09-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2011
1. Petitioner has questioned order dated 23.06.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar-respondent No. 3 on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Private respondents have filed the reply. It is averred that though they had filed a caveat before the Registry but despite of that interim direction came to be granted on 02.08.2011, constrained them to question the same by the medium of Letters Patent Appeal, was disposed of writ a direction to the Registry to list the writ petition along with CMO No. 1506/2011 on 17.08.2011 at top of the list and learned counsel for private respondents had stated at bar that he would not seek any adjournment. 3. Mr. Qayoom argued that the interim order came to be passed in terms of the judgment passed by this court in OWP No. 52/2011 read with LPA No. 59/ 2011, thus the writ petitioner is precluded from questioning the impugned order. It is averred in the reply that OWP No. 597/2010 was filed by three persons namely Gh. Qadir Sheikh, Abdul Gani Malik and Ab. Gaffar Lone and a direction was sought to command official respondents-revenue agency to ensure strict action and compliance in terms of mandate of section 133-A of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996 (for short Act). Interim direction was granted vide order dated 17.06.2010 (Annexure-R2 to the reply). Thereafter petitioners in the said writ petition sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to petitioner no. 3 to file fresh one. Accordingly writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally vide order dated 21.12.2010 so far as it related to petitioners 1 & 2 and with liberty to petitioner no. 3 (Annexure-R3). Accordingly, petitioner No. 3 Ab. Gaffar Lone along with two other persons, namely, Mohammad Ramzan Bhat (petitioner in the present petition) and Gh. Mohammad Bhat filed another petition bearing OWP No. 52/2011 almost for the same relief which he and other writ petitioners have sought in OWP No. 597/2004, came to be disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure-R5) by directing the official respondents to look into the matter, was subject matter of LPA No. 59/2011 filed by private respondents, came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure-R6). In terms of the orders passed by the writ court and Division Bench (supra), Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar visited the spot and conducted inquiry to presence of all interested parties and passed the order dated 23.06.2011 (An-nexure-R7), impugned herein. Ab. Gaffar Lone, Mohammad Ramzan Bhat and Gh. Mohammad Bhat filed another writ petition bearing OWP No. 755/2011 on the same dated, i.e., 23.06.2011 along with an application for grant of interim relief and prayed for the same relief which they had earlier sought in the writ petitions (supra) and this court vide order dated 24.06.2011 (Annexure-R10) directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Private respondents immediately filed objections and questioned the maintainability of writ petition and also prayed for vacation of status quo order, came up for consideration on 21.07.2011, was adjourned with a direction to list in the week following next. Private respondents questioned the said order by the medium of LPA No. 194/2011 and came to be stayed vide order dated 30.07.2011 (Annexure-R12). Again Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, one of the writ petitioners in the above writ petition and a party in LPA No. 194/ 2011, filed writ petition in hand and questioned the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 4. Reply has not been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Let the same be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. CMP No. 1506/2011 5. Keeping the above said facts in view and the fact that writ petitioner has filed so many writ petitions coupled with the fact that Deputy Commissioner has passed the order impugned in terms of the directions of this Court and the findings returned by the Deputy Commissioner that private respondents are filling the land for the purposes of making it cultivable, thus is not violation in terms of Section 133-A of the Act, I am of the considered view that prima facie case is in favour of private respondents, balance of convenience also tilts in their favour and irreparable loss will cause to them if they are restrained from going ahead with the filling. It also appears that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has tried to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of so many writ petitions in order to prevent the private respondents from making the land cultivable. 6. This Court in Abdul Karim & others Vs. It also appears that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has tried to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of so many writ petitions in order to prevent the private respondents from making the land cultivable. 6. This Court in Abdul Karim & others Vs. State & others, CIMA No. 20/ 2006, decided on 04.05.2006, has held that a person who comes to the court within unclean hands and invokes the jurisdiction of different courts for the same relief is not entitled to any relief/ad-interim relief. 7. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to dismiss the CMP at this stage and vacate the interim direction passed by this Court dated 02.08.2011. Ordered accordingly.