Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 171 (JK)

Girdari Lal v. State of J&K & Ors.

2013-04-01

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2013
1. The petitioner staked claim for being paid compensation in respect of land measuring 2 Kanals covered under Khasra No. 301/248 situated at Village Omalla, Tehsil and District Udhampur. The land was acquired for public purpose. The petitioner approached the Collector and sought Reference in terms of Provisions of State Land Acquisition Act. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the writ petition is taken note of: "...3. That aggrieved and agitated by the actions of the Collector and Private respondents, the petitioner prayed for making a reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge Udhampur. The Reference was accordingly made but finally the same came to be dismissed; and thereafter the dismissal of the Reference no further challenge came to be thrown to the order passed by the District Judge i.e. the Reference Court. 4. That the petitioner herein well within his right filed a Civil Suit praying therein for a declaration that a decree for declaration be passed in favour of plaintiff i.e. petitioner therein declaring therein the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation for the land No. Khasra 301/248 measuring 2 Kanals". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of maintainability of the writ petition referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Laxmi Chand and others, petitioners v. Gram Panchayat, Kararia and others, Respondents reported in AIR 1996 SC 523 and submitted that this petition is maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically referred to paragraph 3 of the aforementioned judgment which is taken note of: "...3. It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is compete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of the cases arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The Civil court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional Courts, viz., the High court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the Civil Court". 4. The claim of the petitioner as projected in this writ petition was taken cognizance by the Collector and Reference was made to Civil court. The Civil court dismissed the Reference. Barring thereof, there is no power to the Civil Court". 4. The claim of the petitioner as projected in this writ petition was taken cognizance by the Collector and Reference was made to Civil court. The Civil court dismissed the Reference. The judgment of the Civil Court was not challenged by the petitioner and the order of the District Judge (Reference Court) has attained finality. The dismissal of the Reference resulted in a declaration that petitioner's claim as projected in the writ petition and Reference was not accepted. The judgment of the Reference Court having been not challenged binds the petitioner. The same claim came to be again projected in the Civil Suit which was instituted by the petitioner and which suit was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the Civil Suit was not maintainable. The Civil 2nd Appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. It is for this reason that this writ petition under Section 104 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is filed wherein, the decree and judgment of the Original Court and decree and judgment passed by the 1st Appellate court are challenged. The Civil Suit in view of the fact that the order passed in Reference by Civil Court had attained finality was not maintainable. For the said reasons, this petition is not maintainable and reference made to Laxmi chand's case is of no assistance to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not invoked original writ of Jurisdiction of this case but has invoked the Supervisory jurisdiction of this court. 5. For the above stated reasons, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limini. 6. Dismissed alongwith connected CMA(s).