JAMMU MUNICIPAL CORP. Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent the appeal is taken up for hearing.

(2.) The land in question, as appears from the judgment of the Division Bench, rendered in LPA(W) No. 36/1989 (Chaju Ran and Anr. v. State of J&K and Ors.), a copy whereof was in the file containing the application of the writ Petitioner-Respondent seeking permission to construct the first and second floor over the shop in question, as produced by learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality before this Court in terms of an earlier order of this Court, was given by way of grant of June 28, 2009 by the State of Jammu and Kashmir for construction of a Dharmshalla. The said judgment depicts that later on the trustees of the said Dharamshalla granted lease of part of the said land to various persons for periods as long as twenty years and those leassees raised 2 to 5 storied constructions thereon. A complaint to that effect having been received, the Government acted and by an order dated July 22, 1976, directed resumption of the land. This order of the Government was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, which was dismissed, and against the order of dismissal the aforementioned appeal was preferred. The appeal was allowed and the Respondents in the appeal, namely the State Government, was directed not to evict the Appellants, i.e., Dharamshalla, from the. property in question except in accordance with law including by taking recourse to provisions contained in the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1959.

(3.) The records thus produced by learned Counsel for the Appellants and the records of the case before us do not show that subsequent to the said judgment of the Division Bench, any step had been taken by the State Government for eviction of the Dharamshalla. The only ground upon which the Appellants refused to entertain the application of the Respondent-writ Petitioner was that Dharamshalla was not the owner of the land, but it was the State Government who was owner of the land, though the said ground was not disclosed until filing of objection to the writ petition, which in turn had been filed to uphold deemed sanction.