LAWS(J&K)-2010-4-67

MOHD. SHABAN BHAT Vs. STATE

Decided On April 12, 2010
Mohd. Shaban Bhat Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order of Deputy Commissioner Budgam whereby order for eviction of the petitioner from the land has been issued, petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that receipt stood issued by respondent no. 4 on account of sale of land measuring 16 and a half marlas under Survey no. 1142 situate at Natipora Tehsil Chadoora District Budgam. The receipt reveals that final payment would be made by the petitioner at the time of execution of the sale deed. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land on account of acknowledgement of having received the amount by respondent no. 4. In alternative he states that prior to the execution of this agreement, petitioner was working as a Chowkidar of the property on behalf of respondent no. 4, which status has been acknowledged by the respondents in their application filed before the District Magistrate. It is further contended that petitioner was not given proper hearing by the District Magistrate before passing the impugned order, as such, it has resulted in violation of rules of natural justice.

(3.) The contention of the respondents on the other hand is that even though there is a receipt executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of the petitioner, it only acknowledges receipt of payment but does not confer any right on the petitioner to have the possession of the property. It is stated that definition clause defines an un-authorized occupant. It states that any person who has no written consent of the migrant is an un-authorised occupant. Mere issuance of a receipt or an agreement to sell does not confer any right on the petitioner to be in possession of the property. The petitioner continues to be an un-authorized occupant of the land and is liable to be evicted from the same. The other contention of the petitioner that he was not heard, is not well founded, as, on his own showings, petitioner has appeared before the District Magistrate and the order has been passed only after hearing him.