JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. OWP No. 746/2002 1. Through the medium of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of orders bearing No. KB/CB/BPC/272, dated 27.07.2002 and No. RB/CB/BPC/273, dated 27.07.2002 issued by Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu, respondent No. 2 herein, whereby two sanctions have been accorded for construction of residential buildings over two strips of land measuring 600 sq. ft. each, adjoining Plot No. 110, Sector No. 2, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein. Petitioner is also seeking quashing of allotment orders, whereby said strips have been allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein, which are adjoining the plot of petitioner. 2. The facts, as projected in the writ petition, are that on the basis of a Will executed by one Shanti Saroop Kapoor the lease hold rights with respect to Plot No. 110-P, Sector No. 2, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, a corner plot, came to be transferred in favour of petitioner herein. It is averred that said Shanti Saroop Kapoor had paid extra premium for the said plot, being corner one, which comes under the category of preferential plots. It is averred that thereafter, after getting the site plan approved from respondents 1 & 2, petitioner built a house over the said plot and is living there. It is averred that some officers of JDA illegally and unauthorizedly carved out certain strips in Trikuta Nagar area and allotted the same to various persons including respondents 3 & 4 herein, who were allotted two strips of 600 sq. ft. each. It is stated that respondents 3 & 4 are real brothers. It is averred that after hue and cry in various newspapers, the Board of Directors of JDA met on 24.02.1993 and decided to cancel the allotment of said strips and not to accord building permission for these strips; rather these strips were decided to be developed as green belts in the Colony. 3. The grievance of petitioner is that despite the aforesaid decision by the Board of Directors of JDA to cancel illegal allotment of strips, two orders bearing No. RB/CB/BPC/272, dated 27.07.2002 and No. RB/CB/BPC/273, dated 27.07.2002, impugned herein, came to be issued by the Chief Town Planner, JDA, respondent No. 2 herein, thereby according sanctions in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein for construction of residential buildings over two strips of land measuring 600 sq. ft. ft. each, adjoining his corner plot/building, thereby violating his easementary rights. Hence, the present petition. 4. Objections have been filed on behalf of respondents. In the objections filed on behalf of respondents 1 & 2, it is admitted that strips-in-question have been allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein and that building permissions have also been granted in their favour. It is averred that at the relevant point of time a decision was taken to carve out the strips where the open area was available, but later on the same was changed by the Board of Directors. However, it is averred that building permission in favour of respondents 3 & 4 vide the orders impugned came to be granted in view of judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA(OW) No. 739/1997, dated 10.03.2000, in which respondents 3 & 4 had challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondents 1 & 2 and the same came to be struck down by the Division Bench while passing judgment in the said LPA. Further, it is averred that the orders impugned came to be passed in the best interest of authority. 5. In the objections filed on behalf of respondents 3 & 4, it is averred that the original allottee, namely, Shanti Saroop Kapoor had earlier filed OWP No. 634/92 in this Court against respondents 3 & 4 herein, which came to be dismissed on 09.03.1995 and the said order was not assailed by said Shanti Saroop Kapoor in appeal, hence order dated 09.03.1995 has become final and is also binding on petitioner herein. Further, it is averred that said Shanti Saroop Kapoor had also filed a suit before the Additional District Judge, Jammu with regard to the matter in question, which came to be dismissed in default on 18.01.1996 and no attempt was made for revival of suit, hence the order passed in the said suit has also become final. It is further averred that the strips-in-question were duly allotted by the Jammu Development Authority in favour of respondents 3 & 4 and they were put in possession of the same in November, 1991. 6. It is further averred that the strips-in-question were duly allotted by the Jammu Development Authority in favour of respondents 3 & 4 and they were put in possession of the same in November, 1991. 6. In the rejoinder filed by petitioner, it is averred that the Civil Suit filed by the original allottee, namely, Shanti Saroop Kapoor, referred to above, became infructuous when, during the pendency of said suit, the Board of Directors of Jammu Development Authority had taken a decision that no site plan shall be approved with respect to the strips-in-question allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also perused the writ file. 8. When this writ petition came to be filed in August 2002, this Court vide order dated 21.08.2002 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo as was existing on the said date. 9. Although, in the present writ petition, the dispute is with regard to according sanction by the Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein for construction of residential buildings over strips-in-question, yet the question remains to be determined is: whether the aforementioned strips of land have legally been allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 and whether the said allotments still exist in their favour, and, whether by allotting these strips in favour of respondents 3 & 4, the easementary rights of petitioner have been violated. 10. In paragraph-8 of objections filed by respondents 1 & 2 herein, they have specifically admitted that at the relevant time a decision was taken to carve out various strips of land in Trikuta Nagar locality and out of these strips, aforementioned two strips of land came to be allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 and the same is a matter of record. 11. However, it is the specific case of petitioner that some officers of JDA illegally and unauthorizedly carved out these strips in Trikuta Nagar area and allotted the same to various persons including respondents 3 & 4 herein, who are real brothers. 11. However, it is the specific case of petitioner that some officers of JDA illegally and unauthorizedly carved out these strips in Trikuta Nagar area and allotted the same to various persons including respondents 3 & 4 herein, who are real brothers. Further, it is his specific case that after hue and cry in various newspapers, the Board of Directors of JDA met on 24.02.1993 and decided to cancel the allotment of said strips including the strips of land allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein and not to accord building permission for these strips, rather these strips were decided to be developed as green belts in the Colony. 12. Respondents 1 & 2 in their objections though have denied that these strips including the strips-in-question were allotted illegally, however, in paragraph-9 thereof they have admitted that the Board of Directors of Jammu Development Authority had decided to cancel the allotment of these strips including the strips allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein and the same is a matter of record; meaning thereby the Jammu Development Authority as well as Chief Town Planner, JDA, respondents 1 & 2 herein, have themselves admitted that the allotment of these strips including the strips allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein came to be cancelled by the Board of Directors of JDA; Once it is the admitted stand of Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu that the strips of afore-stated land allotted in favour of respondents 1 & 2 have already been cancelled by the Board of Directors of JDA in its meeting held on 24.02.1993, then how and under what authority the Chief Town Planner has accorded sanction for construction of residential buildings over these strips-in-question. 13. Now, it would be relevant to reproduce hereunder decision No. 45.21 taken by the Board of Directors of JDA in its 45th meeting held on 24.02.1993: "45.21 Allotment of strips in Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony: "The Board decided that action shall be taken against the officers responsible for illegal allotment. No building permission shall be granted to the lessees in the residential areas. Allotment of these strips in commercial areas shall be considered on its merits as per rules. No building permission shall be granted to the lessees in the residential areas. Allotment of these strips in commercial areas shall be considered on its merits as per rules. In case the lessees are so willing, the money along with interest of 9% shall be refunded to them and the lease deed be cancelled; otherwise land be acquired by the JDA at the same rate it was leased out." 14. Thus, from the above decision of Board of Directors of JDA, it is crystal clear that the Board had decided to cancel the allotment of these strips and action was also decided to be taken against those officers responsible for these illegal allotments. Once the Board of Directors had found that these were illegal allotments, then how, in the present writ petition, JDA as well as Chief Town Planner could claim that there was no illegality in allotting these strips. Even in the said meeting it was decided that no building permission shall be granted to the lessees for these strips. 15. Even petitioner has also quoted the decision of Board of Directors in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. While replying to the said paragraph, respondents 1 & 2 have also admitted that the Board of Directors had cancelled the allotment of these strips and the same is a matter of record. Thus, once the Board of Directors had decided to cancel allotment of these strips and not to grant building permission to the lessees of these strips, as the same were allotted illegally by some officers of the JDA, which fact has also been admitted by respondents 1 & 2 in their objections, then no question arises to accord sanction by the Chief Town Planner for construction over the said strips, that too, when, after the decision of Board of Directors of JDA to cancel all such allotments, all these illegal allotments ceases to exist. Thus, after such a decision, actually neither any allotment exists in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein nor exists in favour of those allottees/lessees, who have illegally been allotted such strips in Trikuta Nagar locality by some officers of the JDA. Thus, this action on the part of Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu comes within the scope of corrupt practices. 16. Thus, this action on the part of Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu comes within the scope of corrupt practices. 16. Further, in the said meeting of Board of Directors, it was decided to give an option to the lessees of these strips to take their money back along with 9% interest and, in that eventuality, lease deeds made in their favour were to be cancelled, or, JDA was directed to acquire the said land at the same rate it was leased out. 17. Even a coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.03.1995 while dismissing OWP No. 634/92 filed by Shanti Saroop Kapoor, the original allottee of Plot No. 110-P, has held that the petitioner shall be within his right to either claim cancellation of allotments made in favour of Ganesh Kumar Gupta and Ashok Kumar, respondents 4 & 5 herein, or alternatively claim compensation for any alleged damage having been done to his interests, if any; meaning thereby at that point of time too the Court was of the view that the allotments-in-question in favour of respondents 4 & 5 along with other such allottees had been made illegally. Further, it is very strange that once the allotment orders have already been decided to be cancelled by the JDA-Board, then how and under what capacity respondent No. 2 has accorded sanction in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein for construction of residential buildings over strips-in-question. 18. Here, in the objections fled by respondents 1 & 2, time and again the lone ground taken in support of orders impugned is that the same were issued after the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA(OW) No. 739/1993 decided on 10.03.2000. Actually, it is not LPA(OW) No. 739/1993, rather it is OWP No. 739/97 decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.03.2000. Learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 without applying application of mind has everywhere in the objections written wrong figures. Actually, it is not LPA(OW) No. 739/1993, rather it is OWP No. 739/97 decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 10.03.2000. Learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 without applying application of mind has everywhere in the objections written wrong figures. However, be that as it may, since respondents 1 & 2 have tried to justify the impugned orders only by taking the plea of decision of this Court in OWP No. 739/1997 decided on 10.03.2000, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder relevant portion of said judgment hereunder: "As a consequence of aforesaid draft award No. JDA/Collector/Acq./235 dated 4th July, 1996, Annexure-U to the writ petition and all proceedings which was taken prior to it on the basis of notification 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act so far it relates to the two strips of petitioners is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to acquire this property alter following the procedure prescribed by law, if they so choose." 19. The afore-quoted order clearly reveals that there was no such direction to respondents 1 & 2 herein to give sanction to respondents 3 & 4 herein for construction of residential buildings over the strips-in-question, rather respondents 1 & 2 were given liberty to acquire the strips-in-question after following the procedure prescribed by law. Since respondents 1 & 2 had failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law in making the draft award dated 04.07.1996, only on that count the draft award came to be quashed reserving liberty to respondents 1 & 2 to acquire the strips-in-question after following the proper procedure. 20. Even the appeal, being LPA(OW) No. 147/2000, filed by Jammu Development Authority against the order dated 10.03.2000 passed in OWP No. 739/1997, came to be dismissed with a direction that the appellants, if they so choose, may initiate fresh proceedings strictly in terms of Section 4 Clauses (a), (b) & (c) of the Act. 21. Therefore, it is clear that respondents 1 & 2 have tried to mislead the Court so as to justify their illegal acts by taking a stand that the impugned orders came to be issued only after the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in OWP No. 739/1997. 21. Therefore, it is clear that respondents 1 & 2 have tried to mislead the Court so as to justify their illegal acts by taking a stand that the impugned orders came to be issued only after the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in OWP No. 739/1997. Thus, the afore-discussed facts clearly reveal that the strips-in-question have illegally been allotted in favour of respondents 3 & 4 as well as other such allottees in Trikuta Nagar locality. Respondent No. 1 instead of taking action against those officers responsible for all these illegal allotments of strips in Trikuta Nagar locality, is now trying to justify the illegal acts of such officers thereby intentionally interpreting the judgment in a wrong way. Therefore, on this score alone the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 22. The next contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the plot allotted to him is a corner plot for which he had paid extra premium and if construction is allowed to be raised on the strips-in-question, adjoining his plot, his plot shall cease to be a corner plot. 23. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder Condition-5 of terms and conditions of Perpetual Lease Deed executed by Shanti Saroop Kapoor, the original allottee, with Jammu Development Authority on 08.03.1984: "An additional amount of Rs. 10% of the tentative premium of the respective plot shall be payable for preferential plots marked 'P' on the lay out plan." 24. It is the specific case of petitioner that an additional amount of 10% of the tentative premium was paid to the JD A for his plot, which comes under the category of preferential plots, i.e., a corner plot. Even the respondents have not denied that the plot of petitioner comes under the category of preferential plots as the same is a corner plot nor disputed the fact that 10% of the tentative premium was paid extra for the plot belonging to the petitioner. 25. Admittedly, the plot of petitioner has roads on two sides. Even the respondents have not denied that the plot of petitioner comes under the category of preferential plots as the same is a corner plot nor disputed the fact that 10% of the tentative premium was paid extra for the plot belonging to the petitioner. 25. Admittedly, the plot of petitioner has roads on two sides. Even Annexure "I" and "J" to OWP No. 739/97, decided on 10.03.2000, filed by respondents 3 & 4 herein, i.e., which are the site plants of both the strips-in-question, adjoining Plot No. 110 of petitioner, clearly reveal that if construction is allowed to be raised on both the strips-in-question, then the plot of petitioner, bearing No. 110, shall cease to be a corner plot and shall not come under the category of preferential plots, for which the Jammu Development Authority had taken 10% extra of the tentative premium. Thus, if construction is allowed to be raised on the strips-in-question, the nature of petitioner's plot shall be changed, besides it will also violate his easementary rights. 26. Further, one of the conditions of Perpetual Lease Deed is that the lessee shall not deviate in any manner from the lay-out plan nor alter the size of residential plots, whether by sub-division or amalgamation or otherwise. Similarly, this condition also applies to the Jammu Development Authority that the JDA is also bound not to change or alter the lay-out plan of Trikuta Nagar locality, that too by resorting to illegal means. Otherwise too, since JDA has taken extra amount for allotting Plot No. 110, belonging to the petitioner, being a preferential/corner plot, JDA is bound not to change or alter the nature of plot. Further, for the illegal and corrupt practices of some of the officers of JDA, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. 27. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and both the orders bearing No. RB/CB/BPC/272, dated 27.07.2002 and No. RB/CB/BPC/273, dated 27.07.2002 issued by Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu is hereby quashed. 28. 27. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and both the orders bearing No. RB/CB/BPC/272, dated 27.07.2002 and No. RB/CB/BPC/273, dated 27.07.2002 issued by Chief Town Planner, JDA, Jammu is hereby quashed. 28. Since it has been established by the Board of Directors of JDA itself that the strips including the strips-in-question have illegally been allotted by some officers of the JDA and that after the decision of Board of Directors on 24.02.1993 to cancel all such allotments, actually, thereafter, neither any allotment exists in favour of respondents 3 & 4 herein nor exists in favour of those allottees/lessees, who have illegally been allotted such strips in Trikuta Nagar locality, therefore, JDA, in the given situation, has no other option but is bound to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of which a decision, bearing No. 45.21, was taken by the Board of Directors in its 45th meeting held on 24.02.1993. It is, ordered, accordingly. Further, it is directed that fresh exercise of acquisition proceedings in respect of all such strips in terms of decision No. 45.21 (supra) be initiated by the Jammu Development Authority within a period of eight weeks from today after following proper procedure as prescribed by law. JDA is also directed to take appropriate action against all such officers responsible for allotting all these strips illegally, even if they have retired as on date and, if required, take legal recourse against them. Respondent No. 1 is directed that action take report in respect of such officers as well as action taken on initiation of acquisition proceedings be submitted before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to ensure that the said reports are submitted before him within the time prescribed. Further, respondents 3 & 4 are also at liberty to claim damages as well as compensation from the JDA and JDA is bound to pay the same. Miscellaneous petition(s), accordingly, stands disposed of. 29. In view of allowing of writ petition, Contempt petition (OW) No. 120/2015 shall stand discharged.