JANA BEGUM Vs. UT OF J&K (REVENUE DEPTT.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-defendant seeking quashing of the order dtd. 22/3/2021 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Anantnag and also order dtd. 26/7/2021 passed by learned District Judge, Anantang, whereby the order dtd. 22/3/2021 has been upheld by the learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag. The petitioner has also sought direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent no. 1 to conclude de novo enquiry already initiated by giving her opportunity of being heard within a time bound manner.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that the shop in Meena Bazar, Pahalgam, was allotted to one Abdul Khaliq Beigh of Zadipora, Khanabal, in 2006 vide order No. 627-29 dtd. 5/5/2006 by the Executive Engineer, Pahalgam Development Authority and possession of the said shop was handed over to him. In the said shop, Abdul Khaliq Beigh was running the business of Grocery Store. Plaintiff- respondent no. 8 is a grandson of Abdul Khaliq Beigh, and CM(M) no. 152/2021 CM no. 6747/2021 petitioner, Mst. Jana Begum, is a widow of Abdul Khaliq. Father of the respondent no. 8, grandson of Abdul Khaliq, namely, Abdul Hamid Beigh had died on 3/10/2002, leaving behind respondent no. 8 and two daughters and wife. Abdul Khaliq has also died in the year 2008. During life time aforesaid Abdul Khaliq, grandfather of respondent no. 8-plaintiff before the Trial court, executed a Will in favour of his grandson in respect of the shop in question which was already in possession prior to the order of allotment. At the time when Abdul Khaliq died in the year 2008, the plaintiff-respondent no. 8, who is also grandson of the petitioner, was minor, therefore, the possession of the shop was with his mother and it is only after attaining the age of majority, he started running business in the suit shop as has been claimed by him before the Trial court. From the date of death of the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent no. 8, shop in question remained closed. Petitioner, who is grandmother of plaintiff- respondent no. 8, raised dispute with regard to the shop in question and on her application various orders were passed by SDM, Pahalgam; Chief Executive Officer, Pahalgam Development Authority, Pahalgam; and also, by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag. In pursuance to the various orders, the shop in question was ordered to be sealed; then it was directed to be de-sealed. The possession was ordered to be handed over to the plaintiff-respondent no. 8. De novo enquiry was ordered by Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, and further the possession sought to be taken back.

(3.) The petitioner herein claimed that she is owner of the shop and had executed rent deed in respect of the suit shop. So, in brief the dispute so raised by the grandmother of the respondent no. 8 was with regard to the possession and owner of the suit shop in question. It was in view of the said dispute raised that those orders have been passed by the authorities mentioned above.