Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 26 (JK)

Shanker Dass v. State of J&K

2017-02-01

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is of the year 2005 which stands admitted in the year 2008. No counter has been filed by the respondents after admission. 2. Petitioner claims that he was in occupation of Government land in the Railhead Complex area of Jammu along with other 20 families where were thereafter re-designated into 38 families. Petitioner claims to be one among them. He pleads that he along with his brother had been in occupation of 33 kanals of land on the basis of Annexure-D which is a revenue record. He also relies upon Annexure-C to show that some compensation was paid in lieu of taking over the property for purpose of construction of road between Gandhi Nagar Extension and Railhead Complex Jammu by the Government in Jammu Development Authority. In this regard counsel for the petitioner relies upon Annexure-F. Government issued an order No. 171-UD of 1984 dated 21.04.1984 wherein sanction was accorded to lease out certain extent of land for a period 20 years on payment of premium rate of Rs. 3,000/- per kanal and annual ground rent at the prevalent market rates. It contains other conditions also. 3. According to the petitioner, he was allotted 24 marlas of land whereas he will be entitled to additional land to the extent of 16 marlas. 4. Petitioner has made a request on 08.12.2000 (Annexure-H) for the same. Upon inaction on the part of respondents on his claim, he filed the present writ petition for directing the respondents, more particularly, the Government in JDA Department to allot the balance 16 marlas of land. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the order passed by this Court in OWP No. 714/2000 dated 22.11.2001 in case titled Durga Dass vs. State of J&K and Others in which the same counsels for the petitioner and respondents’ appeared and a direction was issued by the Court to follow the Government order/circular/Policy dated 21.04.21984 (Annexure-F). This direction was passed based on the decision rendered by Supreme Court in case titled State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi and Others, AIR 1986 SC 2025 . 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. This direction was passed based on the decision rendered by Supreme Court in case titled State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi and Others, AIR 1986 SC 2025 . 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that since the respondents have not filed formal counter refuting the claim, the authority will accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner in the light of Government Order No. 171-UD of 1984 dated 21.04.1984, if the petitioner is entitled to the balance extent of land as pleaded. The authority will ensure lease, as executed earlier, for the balance of extent subject to verification of the claim of the petitioner on merits. 8. Mr. S.S. Nanda, learned Senior Additional Advocate General reiterates the stand taken by Mr. Adarsh Sharma. 9. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to accord consideration to the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and dispose of the same on merit position.