Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 718 (JK)

Isher Singh v. UOI

2017-08-23

ALOK ARADHE, B.S.WALIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Aradhe, J. 1. In this intra Court Appeal, the appellant has assailed the validity of order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the petitioner claims to be an allottee of land measuring 08 kanals 15 marlas in khasra Nos. 83 and 84 situate at village Cheri, Tehsil and District Udhampur. The aforesaid land was acquired by the Collector. However, the compensation was not paid to the petitioner, thereupon the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, namely OWP No. 714/1996 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.1999 with a direction to the respondents to take decision in the matter in the light of the observations made in the order and the appellant was also granted liberty to seek remedy under Section 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Collector, by an order dated 05.02.2000, rejected the claim of the appellant. 3. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of Collector in OWP No. 285/2001 which was also disposed of vide order dated 21.09.2001 in which a Bench of this Court held that the question whether the appellant is entitled to proprietary rights in respect of the land in question is a matter which is to be examined by the competent authority of the Revenue Department. Accordingly, the competent authority of the Revenue Department was directed to examine the matter. 4. By an order dated 02.08.2002, the claim of the appellant was again rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed OWP No. 484/2005 before learned Single Judge which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2013 by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the petitioner did not take any step for seeking correction of the revenue records and the land in question is recorded to be in possession of tenants at will. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 29.05.2013 has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and behind his back, the impugned order has been passed. 6. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 29.05.2013 has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and behind his back, the impugned order has been passed. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 29.05.2013, we find that the matter has been determined unilaterally behind the back of the appellant. Since the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, no sanctity in the eye of law can be attached to the same. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing as well as opportunity to lead evidence to the appellant and thereafter, decide the issue with regard to the claim of the appellant for conferment of proprietary rights in respect of the land in question. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of four months from today. Needless to state that the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department shall decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.