NISSAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of order dated 26.7.2002 petitioner was granted two weeks time as last opportunity for filing rejoinder, it is reported by the Registry that he has not filled the same.

(2.) It appears that petitioner Nissar Hussian invoked the Jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the constitution of India read with section 103 of the J&K constitution for issuance of writ,order or direction in the name of respondents for setting aside notice No. DDE/J/166 dated 17.4.2002 issued by respondent-2 with further direction to respondent to regularise the possession of Govt. Quarter No. 34-G Company Bagh, Jammu in his favour. It is inter-alia maintained in the petition that it is pursuant to the assurance by the Director Estates for allotment the petitioner got possession of Govt. Quarter No. 34-G, Company Bagh, Jammu in the month of Nov. 2001, thereafter he has been requesting the respondents to regularise his allotment despite several representations made by him to the said respondent,instead he came to be served with a Notice No. DDE/J/166 dated 17.4.2002 by the said respondent Director Estates calling upon the petitioner to appear before him. That in similar circumstances this court has passed the order for regularisation of the allotment made in favour of persons who were promised allotments.

(3.) Respondents have resisted the petition through respondent-3 who has filed his counter affidavit wherein he has inter-alia stated that the petitioner after trespassing into the Govt. Quarter No. 34-G Company Bagh, Jammu came to file civil suit before the Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants-Respondents herein which came to be dismissed on 24.6.2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu after holding that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the cases pertaining to eviction of unauthorized occupants. This order of chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu came to be challenged in appeal before the first appellate court which came to be dismissed on 9.4.2002. That the present petition is hit by the principle of res judicata. That an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner.