news details |
|
|
| HC quashes notice for eviction of Modern Hotel | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Apr 10: Justice Sanjeev Kumar of J&K High Court while deciding bunch of petitions, quashed the notices issued to the petitioners for eviction of Modern Hotel, General Bus Stand Jammu under Section 6(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988 are held to be bad in the eye of law.
Justice Sanjeev also quashed the notices issued by the Tehsildar, JDA. Court further directed that the respondents shall be free to proceed against the petitioners, if required, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act.
In that eventuality, not only the petitioners shall be put to show cause notice but they shall also be given an opportunity to produce evidence, which they intend to produce in support of their claim. They shall also be provided personal hearing, if requested. The show cause notice to be issued to the petitioners shall clearly indicate the grounds and the material relied upon, on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made, so that the petitioners are in a position to effectively reply the show cause notice and justify their claim to continue in possession of the public premises. While allowing the petitions, Justice Sanjeev Kumar observed that from a perusal of the notice and looking to its contents, it is abundantly clear that the notice issued falls within the purview of Section 6(2) of the Act. The notice nowhere declares the petitioners unauthorized occupants nor does it seek his eviction from the public premises, however, what the notice seeks is the removal of the building/ structure raised on the public premises that, too, on the ground that there is a Division Bench order of the High Court dated 14.06.2017 and some decision of the Board of Directors of the Jammu Development Authority.
Court further observed that whether or not such notice could have been issued in the case of the petitioners shall be deliberated after some time, but suffice it to say that the impugned notice falls within the four corners of Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, not appealable under Section 12 of the Act. Decision of the Appellate Authority that the impugned notice is not appealable, therefore, cannot be found fault with.
Court is of the considered view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case issuance of impugned notice under Section 6(2) of the Act was not called for. With these observations, Court said that the impugned notices issued to the petitioners are rendered bad in the eye of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained and in the given facts and circumstances, narrated above, the respondents are well advised to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, if they propose to evict the petitioners from the public premises. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
