VARINDER SUDAN Vs. STATE OF J. & K.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged his eviction. This he has described as contrary to law.

(2.) FACTS are as under.

(3.) A persual of the above would make it apparent that the petitioner was called upon to show cause on or before 5.9.2000. As no cause was shown, the petitioner was dispossessed. A barbed wire put by the petitioner was removed and his temporary structure was demolished. The petitioner's case is that he is the owner of the land and the Jammu Development Authority has nothing to do with this piece of land. His further case is that the notice indicated above was never served on the petitioner. This specific stand is taken in paragraph "10" of the writ petition. The relevant sub-paragraph is reproduced below :-