KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to have khokha at Ware House, Nehru Market, Jammu and having business of second hand spare parts under the name and style of 'K.S.Motor Parts'. The case of the petitioner is that his khokha got burnt in the fire accident on 8/3/1992 and was also demolished subsequently by the respondent-Jammu Development Authority for establishment of Bus Stand for Kathua route buses. His shop was also insured with the Insurance Company and the assessment of loss was made with regard to the shop. The petitioner claims to have made representations to the respondents for allotment of shop site at Transport Nagar, Narwal, Jammu as the other similar situated persons were provided the same benefit by the respondents but failed to get the requisite relief from the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 7/2/2009 whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of shop site in the Transport Nagar, Narwal, Jammu has been rejected. The petitioner has annexed the documents to plead that he had khokha at Nehru Market at the relevant point of time. The sum and substance of the case of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that he had khokha at Nehru Market, Jammu and was required to be provided alternate site at Transport Nagar, Jammu yet he has been denied the benefit of the same by the respondents without any plausible reason.

(3.) The objections to the writ petition have been filed by the respondents wherein the respondents have submitted that the petitioner was required to file his case for allotment at Transport Nagar, Jammu before the Committee constituted for the said purpose but the petitioner failed to do the same. As per the reply, 396 applications were received qua the claims in pursuance to the notification issued for the same but the petitioner had not applied for allotment. The petitioner did not choose to file any application regarding his absence from the allottees for more than fifteen years and, therefore, the petitioner has no case on the ground of delay and latches. The respondents have denied of the facts pleaded by the petitioner regarding the burning of his Khokha or any compensation being assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The case of the petitioner was considered but not found worthy of merit. The petition involves disputed questions of fact and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable is also the stand taken in the objections. The rejoinder to the objections more or less reiterate as to what is mentioned in the writ petition.