news details |
|
|
| DB directed CS to remove encroachment and evict the unauthorized occupants | | Encroachment of Prime Land | | Jammu| Feb 15
Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir, High Court, Jammu Wing comprising Chief Justice BA Khan and Justice JP Singh in a letters patent appeal filed by All J&K Civil Engineering Graduates Association and Others against the judgment of Single Judge, directed the Chief Secretary of the State to take requisite steps/measures to remove encroachment and evict the unauthorized occupants from the state land situated at Raipur near Nai Basti, Jammu by taking steps as were permissible under law.
DB further directed Chief Secretary that he shall file compliance report in this behalf with the Registrar Judicial of High Court Jammu Wing indicating the steps taken in this behalf after every 3 months.
This significant judgment has been passed in a LPA filed by All J&K Civil Engineering Graduates Association and others seeking quashment of Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Jammu’s order dated September 14, 1993 rescinding lease agreement dated October 25, 1991 between AEE Irrigation Sub-Division, Bishnah and the Association and consequential order of Chief Engineer IFC Department dated September 18, 1993 cancelling applicants allotment over 27 Kanals 6 Marla of land comprised Raipur near Nai Basti Jammu. The association had filed a writ petition challenging the orders of CE, IFC Department. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding the association could not derive any right of allotment on the state land on the basis of the agreement executed by the Assistant Executive Engineer because AEE had no authority to enter into any agreement or allotment of the state land for and on behalf of on the Governor of the state. Aggrieved by the judgment of single judge the appellants have filed this LPA.
This significant judgment written by Justice JP Singh for the Division Bench and after hearing Advocate KS Johal appearing for the appellants and Additional Advocate Generals BS Salathia, Seema Shekhar appearing for the state and Advocate SS Nanda appearing for the JMC, observed that during the course of consideration of this appeal, the bench had directed registration of a police case against those who were responsible for grabbing the state land and FIR No 48/1994 was accordingly reregistered by the Vigilance Organization Jammu.
DB had appointed Deputy Commissioner Jammu to know about the existing position on spot to facilitate the final hearing of the appeal. Advocate General was also asked to place on record a copy of final police report as it had been pointed out during the currency of this appeal that the police had closed the case. Appellants counsel Mr. KS Johal placed certain additional documents on record, besides relying on official communications.
After hearing Adv Johal and AAG Seema Shekhar, considering the documents placed by the appellants on record, report of the official agencies as also the latest spot inspection report of Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. This material does not even remotely suggest any authority in the AEE to enter into an agreement for and on behalf of Governor of State to convey or allot the state land. The state land may be conveyed or dealt with only after procedure proscribed in this behalf for allotment had been duly followed and that too, by an authority which was authorized and vested with such power or authority to do so.
Faced with the situation that the appellants were not in possession of the land and the agreement relied upon by the association was hit by section 122 of constitution of J&K, the counsel for the appellants submitted that as the court had, while admitting the appeal to hearing, treated it to be a matter in public interest as well, so all those persons who were in unauthorized occupation of the land were required to be evicted to keep the property of the state free from encroachment and possession of the unauthorized occupants. DB do not find any difficulty in accepting the submission of Adv Johal counsel for the appellants, for it, is the duty of the state functionaries to protect the state property and retrieve it from the possession of unauthorized occupants.
Before parting the judgment the Division Bench, however, observed that Vigilance Organization has closed FIR NO 48/1994 in a perfunctory manner proceeding on the premises that appellant’s writ petition had been dismissed by the Court and they were not in a possession of the land, so the police case deserved to be closed. Upon this the Division Bench said that they are not satisfied with the manner in which Vigilance organization has proceeded to closed the FIR without carrying out requisite investigation in the case. DB, however, stop shot of saying more on it for it is the province of the competent court seized of the final police report to dwell on the matter and on the further course of action to be taken in the matter. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
