Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 14: Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekri has held that unauthorized occupant of the State land has no right to seek a mandamus against the JDA to restrain it from fencing the land which is legally vested in it.
“The petitioner, if in possession of the subject land, has to establish it before the Civil Court where a civil suit filed by him is stated to be pending. The protection, if any, required by the petitioner to protect his possession over the subject land, if any, can also be given by the Civil Court seized of the matter”, the DB added while dealing with three petitions.
The dispute in all these three petitions revolves around land measuring 8 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 746 min situated at village Gole Tehsil and district Jammu. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of subject land after the same was transferred in his favour by one Gurjeet Singh. Indisputably, the subject land under possession of the petitioner is the State land and is recorded as such in the revenue records.
Apprehending his dispossession from the subject land by the Jammu Development Authority, the petitioner filed OWP No. 439/2010 wherein the petitioner, inter alia., sought a direction to the respondents not to forcibly dispossess him from the subject land. The writ petition was resisted by the JDA.
It was the categoric stand taken by the JDA that the subject land was a part of State land which was transferred to JDA by the Government vide its Order No. Rev(NDS) 46 dated 28.01.1973. It was submitted that the subject land was never owned and possessed by Gurjeet Singh, nor did he have any right or title to transfer it to the petitioner.
After hearing both the sides, the DB observed, “the petitioner who is in unauthorized occupation of the State land has no right to seek a mandamus against the JDA to restrain it from fencing the land which is legally vested in it. The petitioner, if in possession of the subject land, has to establish it before the Civil Court where a civil suit filed by him is stated to be pending”.
“The protection, if any, required by the petitioner to protect his possession over the subject land, if any, can also be given by the Civil Court seized of the matter. This court has already declined to afford any protection to the petitioner while disposing of OWP No. 439/2010 and, therefore, there is no point in issuing fresh directions to protect the interest of the petitioner qua the subject land in this petition”, the DB said while dismissing the petition
“The respondent-JDA may go ahead with the fencing of the subject land, but in the process, shall not evict the petitioner if in possession of the subject land, otherwise than by following due process of law”, the DB added.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel