Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 29 (JK)

Javid Ahmad Dar & Ors. v. State & Ors.

2012-02-04

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2012
1. It is contended that respondents have acknowledged the claim of the petitioners and have received from them, the amount as directed, and on their instructions petitioners have taken the possession of the shops-the subject matter of the writ petition in anticipation of issuance of formal orders of allotment. Now the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners illegally despite of the fact that the petitioners are entitled to the allotment of the said shops, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 2. Mr. Khan stated at bar that so many writ petitions were pending before this court which were ultimately decided with the direction to make allotment in favour of the genuine claimants and accordingly shops were constructed in Block E of Hazuri Bagh Complex and are to be allotted after following the procedure. It is further contended that claims of some of the writ petitioners is genuine, some are under verification and petitioners 1,12 and 24 have neither deposited the premium nor submitted the format in connection with the allotment of shop and thus are not genuine claimants. In support of his arguments, he has produced the photostat copies of the communications and orders, made part of the file. He further stated that allotment is to be made in terms of the judgments passed by this court read with the orders supra made by the respondents. 3. Further he stated that petitioners are trespassers; they have taken possession of the shops forcibly. No doubt some of the petitioners are having bonafide claims and claim of some of the petitioners is under verification while as three are not found genuine claimants and it is not known who will be entitled to which shop in terms of orders supra i.e. draw of lots. In such a background, the prayer is made that no interim relief be passed in favour of the petitioners at this stage. 4. Heard. Perusal of the communication made by Chief Revenue Officer, Srinagar Municipal Corporation to Mr. Khan discloses that petitioners 2,3,4,5, 6, 11,16; 17,18,19,20 & 21 are found to be genuine claimants and claims of petitioners 7,8,9,10,13,14,15,22 & 23 are pending verification while as claims of petitioners, 12 and 24 are not genuine. However, nothing is recorded in respect of petitioner No. 1. 5. Issue notice returnable within two weeks. Dasti notice also permissible. Mr. Khan discloses that petitioners 2,3,4,5, 6, 11,16; 17,18,19,20 & 21 are found to be genuine claimants and claims of petitioners 7,8,9,10,13,14,15,22 & 23 are pending verification while as claims of petitioners, 12 and 24 are not genuine. However, nothing is recorded in respect of petitioner No. 1. 5. Issue notice returnable within two weeks. Dasti notice also permissible. Mr. B. A. Khan, Advocate waived notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 5 and Mr. S. A. Vakil, AAG waived notice on asking on behalf of respondent No. 1. Registry to furnish copy of the writ petition along with annexures to learned counsel for respondents during the course of this week. Thereafter reply within two weeks. 6. Objections in CMP as above. In the meantime, respondents are directed to make a decision vis-a-vis claim of petitioners 7,8,9,10,13,14,15,22 and 23 and also examine the papers of petitioners 1, 12 and 24 which have been made part of the writ petition, within a week and thereafter make allotments as warranted under law.