1. Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to demolish the single storied structure raised by them on the land of the petitioner comprising Survey No. 163, situate at Sonamarg, Tehsil Kangan, District Ganderbal. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to remove the entire debris from the land of the petitioner and to forthwith withdraw from the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be burdened with heavy costs. 2. It appears that the petitioner had purchased land measuring four Kanals comprised in Survey No. 163, situated at Sonamarg, Tehsil Kangan, District Ganderbal in terms of a legally valid Sale Deed. The land has been duly mutated in the name of the petitioner, which fact is substantiated by the revenue extracts issued on 10.09.2009 placed at annexure 'A' on record of this writ petition. It is averred in the writ petition that during winter season the petitioner could not, and did not, visit her land and that a week back from the date of institution of the present writ petition, she asked her son to visit the land in order to prepare a site plan for raising a suitable construction thereon. It is submitted that on reaching the spot, the son of the petitioner found that the official respondents without any right, title or interest in the land in question, and as an act of trespass, had constructed a single storey structure on the land of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner's son took some photographs of the said structure raised by the official respondents without permission and at the back of the petitioner, which are placed on record of this writ petition. The petitioner's son found that the structure so illegally and un-authorizedly raised on the petitioner's land was not occupied by any person at that time the petitioner's son visited the spot. The petitioner through her son made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, for demolishing the construction in question, but all in vain. It is further submitted that the respondents have neither acquired the land nor have paid any compensation to the petitioner and, therefore, the act of the respondents is illegal and actually tantamounts to a criminal trespass. The petitioner through her son made a request to the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, for demolishing the construction in question, but all in vain. It is further submitted that the respondents have neither acquired the land nor have paid any compensation to the petitioner and, therefore, the act of the respondents is illegal and actually tantamounts to a criminal trespass. It is submitted that the petitioner had fenced the land by barbed wire erected on poles and had also constructed two tin sheds on the land, besides dumping building materials for making constructions thereon. 3. On 03.04.2010, notice was issued to the respondents for filing objections, and parties were directed to maintain status quo on the spot. Besides, in order to ascertain the actual position obtaining on the spot, it was thought proper to appoint a Commissioner in the matter to visit the spot and make a report. Accordingly, Mr. Jawad Ahmad, the then Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court was appointed as Commissioner. The Commissioner, after inspecting the spot, filed a detailed report, which forms part of the record of this writ petition. 4. Respondents have filed their reply and resisted the writ petition on the ground that the Government by virtue of Order No. Rev(s) 256 of 2007 dated 25.07.2007 accorded sanction to the transfer of State Land measuring 7674 Kanals and 17 Marias under various Khasra numbers indicated in the Government order aforementioned in village Sonamarg, Tehsil and District Ganderbal, in favour of the Sonamarg Development Authority, Sonamarg, for the development of Sonamarg area. It is averred that the land in question was in possession of respondent No. 1 prior to passing of the above Government order and falls underneath and appurtenant to the office complex of Sonamarg Development Authority. It is fenced on all sides. A copy of the Government order has been placed on record as annexure 'A' to the reply and the letter issued by respondent No. 1 to fence the land in question is marked as annexure 'B' to the reply filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Sonamarg Development Authority. It is further averred in the reply that petitioner, until filing of the instant writ petition, has never approached the respondents or claimed any right over the said piece of land while the construction was going on the land in question. 5. It is further averred in the reply that petitioner, until filing of the instant writ petition, has never approached the respondents or claimed any right over the said piece of land while the construction was going on the land in question. 5. In paragraph 5 of their reply, the respondents have contended that the land in question is State Land and the same has been in possession of the respondents since decades and prior to issue of the Government order dated 25.07.2001 (supra). Contents of paragraph No. 5 may be reproduced hereunder: "That para 5 is denied. It is submitted that the land in question is state land and the same is in possession of respondents since decades and prior to issuance of Govt. Order. The construction was raised in the year 2005 and same was fenced by the respondents in year 2005. The respondents having invested a huge amount and are maintaining the same since long back cannot be thrown out/dispossessed or evicted without following due process of law. Mutilation of record by petitioner needs a thorough probe and enquiry through Crime Branch or Vigilance." The above quoted statement made on affidavit by the respondents is ex facie false. The petitioner has laid her claim to four Kanals of land comprised in Khasra/Survey No. 163. Respondents have annexed a copy of Government Order no. Rev(S) 256 of 2007 dated 25.07.2007 with their reply as annexure 'A'. By this order sanction has been accorded to the transfer of State land measuring 7674 Kanals and 17 Marias comprised in numerous Khasra numbers detailed in the order itself, situated in village Sonamarg, Tehsil Kangan, District Ganderbal to the Development Authority in question for development of Sonamarg area. Curiously, Survey No. 163 is not mentioned in the Government order, meaning thereby that the land comprised therein is neither State land nor stands transferred to the Authority. On the contrary, the petitioner has placed on record the revenue extracts which sufficiently establish the claim of the petitioner that the land in question is proprietary land and stands duly mutated in the name of the petitioner pursuant to a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by its erstwhile owner. 6. On the contrary, the petitioner has placed on record the revenue extracts which sufficiently establish the claim of the petitioner that the land in question is proprietary land and stands duly mutated in the name of the petitioner pursuant to a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner by its erstwhile owner. 6. On noticing the above glaring false statements made in paragraph 5 of the reply quoted hereinabove, on 01.04.2011 respondent No. 1 was asked to explain as to how he has sworn in the false affidavit, totally contrary to their own record. In response, respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit in an attempt to explain his position. It would be apt to reproduce the last paragraph of the affidavit, which reads as under: "It is submitted that a big chunk of land was transferred by Government in favour of respondent department and the land with Khasra No. 163 falling in between. When the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal; Tehsildar concerned were requested to identify the land claimed by the petitioner which is evident from the communication attached with the affidavit" 7. The writ petition was admitted to hearing on 23.08.2011 after hearing learned counsel for the parties and the respondents were required to file a detailed counter within three weeks. Instead of filing a detailed Counter, the respondents made a statement at the Bar that the objections already filed be treated as counter on their behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that he does not want to file any rejoinder. That is how this case came up for final hearing. 8. Admittedly, the Government has accorded sanction to transfer of the State lands measuring 7674 and 17 Marias to respondent No. 1 comprised in about 95 Khasra numbers. Obviously, the Government would not, and could not, transfer proprietary lands to respondent No. 1. Consequently, the aforesaid Government Order, could not, and, as a matter of fact, did not mention the land in question, i.e., four Kanals comprised in Khasra No. 163 claimed by the petitioner to be her proprietary land. It is not understandable as to how, in what circumstances and under what law, the respondents are laying claim to the proprietary land of the petitioner. It is not understandable as to how, in what circumstances and under what law, the respondents are laying claim to the proprietary land of the petitioner. Apart from the State land, if the respondents needed the proprietary land of the petitioner for any public purpose, they could proceed to acquire the same in accordance with the provisions of the law governing the subject. The respondents have neither acquired the land nor paid any acceptable compensation to the petitioner. On the contrary, they have proceeded not only to illegally occupy the petitioner's land, but have constructed thereon. Such a course adopted by the respondents is antithetic to the fundamental right to property guaranteed under Article 19(f) of the Constitution of India, as applicable within the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Thus the act of the respondents, without doubt, is unconstitutional and totally illegal. 9. It is well settled principle of law that a mere statement made in the reply is not sufficient; the averment so raised must be proved by convincing and reliable documents. In the instant case, the respondents have in their reply merely said that the land in question is State land, but such a statement is not borne out by the Government order dated 25.07.2007, nor the respondents have produced any material to substantiate their claim. On the contrary, the petitioner has established it by producing material that the land is his proprietary land. The respondents thus seem to have acted despotically and without recourse to any law. This is a fit case where the respondents Could be proceeded against for throwing all the laws to winds, but this Court is taking a lenient view of the serious lapses committed by the respondents. 10. For all that has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that the respondents shall take immediate steps for demolishing the structures raised on the land in question, i.e., the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition. It is, however, made clear that the respondents would be also at liberty to estimate the cost of the structures so raised by them, to be got assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ganderbal, through its executive agency, but in that eventuality, the petitioner has to pay the estimated cost of the structures so raised. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the above. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in terms of the above. Disposed of along with connected CMP.