Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 323 (JK)

Abdul Hafiz Wani v. State

2017-07-14

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This application has been filed seeking leave to file appeal against order dated 13.03.2017 passed in OWP No. 1701/2015, by which the petition preferred by respondents 6 & 7 has been disposed of with a direction to the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Collector Land Acquisition Doda and Executive Engineer, PMGSY, Division Doda to verify and release the amount of compensation in light of recommendations made by the Revenue Authority, i.e., Tehsildar Marmat in favour of the petitioners therein within a period of four weeks. However, liberty was granted to the official respondents to recover the same from the Contractor in terms of conditions of the contract agreement between the parties. 3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was not arrayed as respondent in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner had successfully completed the work on 22.11.2013 and a certificate in this regard was issued in his favour. However, the writ petition was filed in the year, 2015 and the same has been decided vide impugned order. It is submitted that no loss or damage has been caused to the respondent Nos. 6 & 7, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to indemnify respondents 6 & 7. It is submitted that in compliance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the official respondents have already released the amount and, now the dispute is between the official respondents and the petitioner. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the liability has been imposed on the petitioner beyond his back for payment of compensation inasmuch as the petitioner was neither arrayed as respondent, nor was heard before the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it is directed that before fixing liability on the petitioner to recover the amount, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the official respondents. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, we modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it is directed that before fixing liability on the petitioner to recover the amount, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing by the official respondents. Needless to state that liability to recover the amount from the petitioner shall be assessed by a speaking order by the competent authority within a period of six weeks from today. Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision as may be taken by the competent authority, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. It is directed that the amount of security deposited by the petitioner shall not be recovered from the petitioner unless decision with regard to the liability of the petitioner is taken. 5. Accordingly, PERLP is disposed of.