ORIENTAL CARPET FACTORY Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The proposal conceived by the State Government a few years back, to set up a Trauma Hospital in vicinity of Shri Maharaja Hari Singh, Hospital and Government Medical College, Srinagar, on a plot of land measuring 11 Kanals and 8 Marias, comprising Survey Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 29, 30 and 33-Min in estate Tashwan has not materialized as M/s Oriental Carpet Factory-petitioner herein, lay claim over a part of the proposed site, measuring 7 Kanals, 13 Marias and 53 sfts.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that land measuring 11 Kanals and 8 Marias comprising Survey Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 29, 30 and 33-Min in estate Tashwan (hereinafter is State land) was allotted to Kailash Oriental Carpet Factory in 1935 and the lease in favour of the Factory was to expire on 19.01.1976. It is pleaded that the original lessee i.e. Kailash Oriental Carpet Factory on 12.07.1958 transferred the leasehold rights over the disputed land alongwith super structures in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner has been ever since in possession of the disputed land. It is insisted that the Oriental Carpet Factory set up on the disputed land is a source of livelihood to the owners of the Factory as also the workmen, employed in the Factory. The petitioner's case is that under the Jammu and Kashmir State Lands (Vesting of Ownerships Rights to the Occupants) Act, 2001, as amended till date, the proprietors of petitioner Factory have a right to get ownership of the disputed land conferred on them on deposit of levy/dues as fixed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. It is pleaded that a formal application for conferment of ownership rights alongwith requisite documents stands filed by the owners. However, petitioner admits that the Assistant Commissioner Nazool vide his letter dated 11.12.2007 has informed the petitioner that his application for conferment of ownership rights has been dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2007 and that for assessment of compensation, as regards super structures existing on the disputed land, the matter has been referred to Chief Engineer Roads and Buildings. It is pleaded that copy of the rejection order whereby the petitioner's application for conferment of ownership has been rejected, is not being provided to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the District Collector having yet to take any steps for acquisition of land, the respondents are stripped of any authority to enter and take over the land to raise the proposed construction. It is pointed out that the petitioner, once the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, are initiated, gets a right to oppose the acquisition and project its case before the competent authority and in absence of proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner would be deprived of the rights available under law to oppose acquisition and project its stand. The petitioner on the strength of averments made in the petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 11.12.2007. It is pleaded that in the event the respondents decide to acquire the disputed land for public purpose, the respondents be asked to pay due compensation to the petitioner and also an alternative site for the displaced Industrial Unit on the lines alternative site has been provided in similar circumstances, to another entrepreneur.