news details |
|
|
| Court dismisses application seeking stay on retrieving 152 kanals of state land | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, June 11: CJM Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh dismissed an application seeking stay on retrieving 152 Kanals and 16 Marlas state land situated at village Chak Bhalwal, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Jammu.
CJM Jammu after going through the arguments of counsel observed that applicants have not sought declaration as a relief in the main suit to the effect that they are in continuous, long, settled and peaceful possession of suit land right from the period of their ancestors/predecessors in interest. Applicants, instead, have straightway sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in main suit on the basis of purported claim of their long and settled possession whereas there is nothing on record except photocopy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 2018 showing applicants Abdul Majid and Ghulam Rasool in possession of some portion of suit land. Ironically, when suit land admittedly happens to be State land, it then is not understandable as to how the name of applicant Abdul Majid has been reflected in the ownership column of aforesaid revenue extract. It also needs to be noted that if someone occupies Government land on account of administrative apathy for some period of time, the character of said possession cannot be equated with settled, effective or un-disturbed possession. It also needs to be under-scored that the horror story of encroachment over government land has many facets. Collusion and connivance with government officials and patronage of influential people is one such facet.
Court further said that there is yet another angle through a claim that applicants have raised in this application - can be examined. Assuming for the sake of arguments that mutations in question with regard to suit land were attested in favour of applicants under J&K State Land ( Vesting of Ownership to Occupants) Act, commonly known as Roshni Act and rights thereof vested in them, yet it needs to be taken note of that said Act was declared unconstitutional, contrary to law and un-sustainable by virtue of the Judgement of our own High Court with direction to authorities concerned to retrieve the possession of such State/Government land from occupants under law. Seen in this back drop, does it lie in the jurisdictional competence of a civil court to injunct the process of retrieval of said land by authorities concerned in light of Judgement of High Court in Roshni Act case? On this analysis also, relief sought by applicants in this application does not merit acceptance. For all what is discussed, it is held that applicants have not succeeded in establishing prima facie case in their favour. The balance of convenience is also heavily tilted/poised against applicants on facts. The third ingredient of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, on facts, also does not lean in favour of applicants as discussed hereinabove. This application therefore has no merit and is therefore dismissed. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
