Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 334 (JK)

Beli Ram v. Jammu Dev. Authority and another

2015-07-09

TASHI RABSTAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of petition-in-hand petitioner is seeking quashment of impugned Order No. JDA/Lity/65-66 dated 02.07.2004 passed by respondent-Jammu development Authority whereby a plot of land measuring one kanal has been allotted to him in Sector No. 9 of Roop Nagar Housing Colony on the ground that he in terms of Govt. Order No. 171-UD of 1984 dated 21.04.1984 (Annexure-C) was entitled to allotment of land measuring one kanal in the area between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Complex, Jammu which was the area identified by the Government for re-settlement of 38 families including the family of the petitioner, who were evicted from the Rail Head Complex area, Jammu. The petitioner has claimed allotment of the plot in the aforesaid area on the analogy of allotment of similar piece of land measuring one kanal of land situated in the aforesaid area in favour of his two other brothers, who were co-sharers along with the petitioner in the land acquired by the Jammu Development Authority. 2. The case-inland has chequered history and brief reference to the facts and instances of factual background in which instant writ petition has been arisen alone would be sufficient. 3. Petitioner earlier to this petition, had filed a writ petition being OWP No. 54/1997 titled Beli Ram v. JDA contending therein that he along with his two brothers, namely, Luder mani and Durga Dass owned more than 30 kanals of land and houses built thereon in village Rakh-Bahu, Tehsil Jammu. The respondents proposed a chunk of land including this land for construction of a Post Commercial Complex, named as Rail Head Commercial Complex, Jammu. The land and house of the petitioner was earmarked by the respondents for acquisition. For habilitation of the uprooted persons the Government evolved a scheme where under the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of land under Govt. Order Nop. 171-UD/1995 dated 21.04.1984. This Court vide order dated 11.10.1999 disposed of the said writ petition by holding that the petitioner is found entitled to the relief prayed for to the extent of his share of the land. Order Nop. 171-UD/1995 dated 21.04.1984. This Court vide order dated 11.10.1999 disposed of the said writ petition by holding that the petitioner is found entitled to the relief prayed for to the extent of his share of the land. The Jammu Development Authority was directed to allot the land to the petitioner to the extent of one kanal which was remaining entitlement of the petitioner along with his brothers, and it shall be open for the brothers of the petitioner to make up their deficiency to demand share of the allotment from the petitioner to the extent of their deficient share as they have been allotted only one Kanal of land whereas, the petitioner by virtue of this order shall be getting one Kanal of land which shall be more than his share. Being aggrieved, respondent-JDA preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court which came to be dismissed. Respondent-JDA thereafter filed SLP, which too was dismissed vide order dated 10.04.2003 Thereafter, they filed review of order dated 10.04.2003 which too was dismissed. When respondents did not adhere to the request and orders passed, petitioner constrained to file Contempt Petition and during the pendency of Contempt Petition, respondents offered a plot bearing Plot No. 112-G in Sector No. 9 of Roop Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu. Ultimately Contempt Petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2004 being rendered infructuous in view of allotment made by the respondent-J DA in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.12.2004, petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which came to be disposed of with the observations that in case petitioner is entitled to get plot in the area between Gandhi Nagar and Rail Head Complex Jammu and allotment has been made elsewhere, he would be at liberty to challenge the present allotment in the Court. 4. It appears that petitioners after getting opportunity from Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the present allotment has once again approached this Court through the medium of instant petition. 5. 4. It appears that petitioners after getting opportunity from Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the present allotment has once again approached this Court through the medium of instant petition. 5. On being put on notice, respondent-JDA resisted the claim of the petitioner in twofold; one that Government order relied upon by the petitioner seeking allotment of plot in the area between Gandhi Nagar Extension to Rail Head Complex, Jammu does not exist any promise to the petitioner and other persons who were evicted from the land under their occupation, to the allotment of plot between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Complex, Jammu only. It is contended on behalf of Jammu Development Authority that land measuring 37 kanals was identified for resettlement of such persons in the aforesaid area without extending any promise or creating any right in favour of such persons including the petitioner. 6. Other arguments raised on behalf of respondents that after disposal of the contempt petition and observations made by learned counsel while disposing of writ petition, issue has been finally settled in as much as this court while disposing of the contempt petition vide its order dated 16.12.2004 had categorically held that in the judgment passed by the learned Single judge dated 11.10.1999, there was no specific direction for allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner in any particular area. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of JDA prays that writ petition is grossly misconceived and deserves dismissal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is true that while disposing of writ petition, vide judgment dated 11.10.1999, learned single judge did not specifically direct allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner in any particular area. It is also not in dispute that two brothers of the petitioner namely, Luder Mani and Durga Dass, who were co-sharers along with petitioner in the land acquired by the Jammu Development Authority were allotted one kanal of land in the area between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Railway Head Complex in terms of Govt. Order No. 171-UD/1995 dated 21.04.1984 (Annexure-C). It is also not in dispute that two brothers of the petitioner namely, Luder Mani and Durga Dass, who were co-sharers along with petitioner in the land acquired by the Jammu Development Authority were allotted one kanal of land in the area between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Railway Head Complex in terms of Govt. Order No. 171-UD/1995 dated 21.04.1984 (Annexure-C). It also appears in the aforesaid Government order that Government had identified area of 37 kanals situated between Gandhi Nagar and Rail Head Complex, Jammu for the purpose of resettlement of 38 families, who had been evicted from the Rail Head Complex area Jammu which include the family of the petitioner as well. It is in the light of the aforesaid Government Order that one kanal of land was identified and allotted in favour of two brothers of the petitioner named above. 9. As is apparent from the perusal of order dated 11.10.1999 passed by the learned Single judge, petitioner who too was allotted similar allotment was left out. It is in this context, writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and petitioner too was held entitled to the remaining 1 Kanal of land, which of course, was subject to adjustment between three brothers. The judgment aforesaid has been upheld by the Higher Courts and has, thus, assumed finality. 10. Arguments of learned counsel for JDA that issue raised in the writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court while disposing of the Contempt Petition vide order dated 16.12.2004 cannot be accepted in the face of order dated 12.05.2005 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which petitioner has been given an opportunity to challenge the order impugned. There is no explanation from the respondents with regard to analogy sought to be drawn by the petitioner for allotment of 1 kanal of land in the area identified under Govt. order No. 171-UD of 1984 dated 21.04.1984 in favour of brothers of the petitioner. Had the petitioner also been alotted land along with his brothers in terms of the aforesaid Government order, he too would have got the plot in the area of Gandhi Nagar Extension and Rail Head Complex, Jammu as was done in case of his brothers who were allotted one kanal of land in the aforesaid area. Petitioner by approaching this Court has litigated upto Hon'ble Supreme Court to get his right established. 11. Petitioner by approaching this Court has litigated upto Hon'ble Supreme Court to get his right established. 11. Respondents JDA which contested the litigation tooth and nail and ultimately failed at all levels came up with an order of allotment impugned in the writ petition whereby plot bearing Plot No. 112-G measuring 1 kanal situated in Sector No. 9, Roop Nagar Housing Colony. 12. This Court can take judicial note of the fact that price of land in Roop Nagar Housing area which is essentially residential colony is far less than price of land in the area between Gandhi Nagar Extension to Rail Head Complex, Jammu which is more or less commercial area of higher potential value. There appears to be apparent discrimination with the petitioner vis-a-vis his brothers and other families evicted along with him from their land in the matter of allotment of land for their resettlement. The petitioner was, thus, entitled at par with other families particularly his two brothers, who were none other than co-sharers along with petitioners in the land acquired by the respondent-JDA. Therefore, the contention raised by the respondents is devoid of any merit and does not justify any differential treatment meted out to the petitioner. 13. Viewed thus, I, therefore, find merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is allowed. Impugned Order No. JDA/Lity/65-66 dated 02.07.2004 (Annexure-L) is quashed. Respondent-JDA is directed to allot a piece of land in favour of the petitioner strictly as per Govt. Order No. 171-UD/1984 dated 21.04.1984 and on the analogy of allotment to his two brothers namely, Luder Mani and Durga Dass. So far as his claim for unpaid compensation is concerned, petitioner would be at liberty to work out his remedy available to him under law. 14. Disposed of as above along with connected MP(s).