VAISHNO DEVI Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD JAMMU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the appellant (For short writ petitioner) assails the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby OWP No.721/2003 filed by her seeking quashment of order dated 25.11.1993, wherein her husband Bachan Singh was directed to appear before the Executive Officer (Estate Officer) Cantonment Board, Jammu-respondent No.2 herein and also order dated 01.12.1993 issued by respondent No.1 directing her husband (since deceased) liable to evict the shop of the Cantonment Board and to pay damages for illegal occupation of the property in dispute, stands dismissed.

(2.) The case set up by the writ petitioner, as averred in the writ petition, is that her husband was allotted a shop in the Shopping Booth constructed under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna, pursuant to the Notification issued by the respondents. After the allotment was made in his favour, in terms of the intimation letter dated 30.08.1990, he was directed to deposit Rs.15,000/- on account of development charges within a stipulated period of 30 days from the date of letter of intimation. Consequently, he deposited a sum of Rs.14,000/- in addition to an amount of Rs.1,000/- which was already deposited by him at the time of applying for allotment of the shop. The possession of the shop was also handed over to her husband. However, after the death of her husband, the shop was not regularly opened.

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioner that in the month of July/August 1991, the respondents called certain allottees of the shops and threatened to cancel their allotment letters, which constrained them to file a civil suit before the learned Sub-Judge, Jammu, which ultimately came to be disposed of on the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that they would not evict the allottees (Plaintiffs in the civil suit) from the suit premises otherwise than in due course of law. The petitioner's husband was also one of the plaintiffs.