Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 525 (JK)

Ganesh Sharma v. Veer Sudershan

2017-08-02

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : In this Intra Court Appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of order dated 07.11.2016, by which the writ petition preferred by the respondents 1 & 2 has been disposed of by directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua to consider and decide the representation in accordance with rules and regulations as also the legal heirs certificate and whatever other documents are placed on record by the respondents by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondents 1 & 2 have surrendered the rights in respect of the brick kiln as well as land in favour of the appellants and the appellants are owners in possession of the brick kiln as well as land. It is submitted that without impleading the appellants as parties in the writ petition, aforesaid direction was obtained by respondents 1 & 2. On the other hand, Mr. V. B. Gupta, Advocate fairly submitted that order passed by the learned Single Judge be modified and the appellants be afforded opportunity of hearing. 3. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the appellants were the necessary party in OWP No. 1532/2016 and, accordingly, it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua while deciding the representation submitted by respondents 1 & 2 shall afford opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well. The appellants shall be at liberty to file the representation along with documents in support of their claim to show that they are owners in possession of the brick kiln as well as the land and the fact that the respondents 1 & 2 have already surrendered their rights in favour of the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner, Kathua shall complete this exercise within a period of two months from today after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well as respondents 1 & 2 by a speaking order. Needless to say that status quo as it exists today with regard to the brick kiln and land in question shall be maintained till the representation filed by the respondents 1 & 2 is decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua. Needless to say that status quo as it exists today with regard to the brick kiln and land in question shall be maintained till the representation filed by the respondents 1 & 2 is decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 4. With the aforesaid directions, appeal is disposed of.