news details |
|
|
| 25 year old litigation decided | | |
JAMMU, MAY 13
Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, Jammu wing, comprising Justice Nirmal Singh and Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain, today upheld the judgment of the single Judge and dismissed the LPA filed by the State against the judgment dated May 10, 2006 whereby the single judge directed the state to grant proprietary rights to Dr. VK Pachnanda in respect of the land measuring 3 Kanals 1 Marla and 24 Sqft, situated Ahata Kalan Telephone Exchange Road Jammu
State land measuring 2 Kanals 14 Marlas and 54 Sqft were given on lease to Ram Singh Pachnanda way back in 1942 on payment of premium and ground rent. Later on by a subsequent order an additional area of 6 Marlas and 242 Sq ft was also given to him for commercial purposes. Thus the land measuring 3 Kanals 1 Marla and 24 Sqft came into the possession of Pachnanda. After his death, the rights were transferred in favour of his wife and after her death, the lease hold rights were transferred in favour her son Dr. VK Pachnanda. In 1981, the Government in its order of August 17, 1981 ordered that the Wasidars who have acquired Nazool land on lease basis shall have opinion to acquire the land on proprietary basis on payment of price equalvent to half of the prevailing market price. Mrs. Pachnanda applied for the same but her application remained undecided till her death. After her death her son Dr. VK Pachnanda perused the matter and approached the concerned revenue authorities. Government did not take any action in the matter forcing him to file petition in the Court. The Single Judge directed the state to grant proprietary rights in respect of the land measuring 3 Kanals Marla 24 Sqft in favour of Dr. VK Pachnanda @ Rs 10 lakh per kanal within a period of two months.
DB, after hearing AAG Mr. AH Qazi appearing for the Revenue Department and Advocate RK Gupta appearing for the Dr. Pachnanda, observed that the Government orders of 1981 and 1985 have now been provided in much broader way by the ROSHNI ACT, that does not destroy the right of lessee to get ownership rights but only extended it to unauthorized occupants and has provided a proper machinery to process and dealt with such matters. In such circumstances the claim of the respondent to get proprietorship rights cannot be denied only on the ground that a more elaborate law, providing the same right which was available to him under the earlier orders, has been provided. As is verified Additional Commissioner Jammu respondent’s mother had filed application for grant of proprietor rights on November 20, 1981, immediately after the order of 1981 was made but no action was taken on it by the concerned authority. No action was taken on it even after promulgation of order of 1985. Now with the enactment of Roshni Act, the state cannot take advantage of the inaction of its own officers and cannot deny the benefit to the respondent on the ground that the matter remained pending for all these years. Thus in view of the principles adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in Manjeet Singh’s case, this DB finds the argument of AAG Mr. A Qazi cannot stand. With these observations dismissed the appeal filed by the state and upheld the judgment of single Judge as the single judge has not committed any legal or jurisdictional error while allowing the writ petition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
