VESSU WELFARE COMMITTEE Vs. RELIEF AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is primarily directed against the communication of respondent No.3 (Tehsildar Relief and Rehabilitation (Migrants), Srinagar) dtd. 17/1/2021 directing the SHO, P/S Qazikund, Kulgam to register an FIR against the petitioners for having entered upon and occupied the under construction quarters at Migrant Colony, Vessu, illegally. The petitioners, beside being aggrieved of the aforesaid communication, also seek a direction to the respondents to adopt a reasonable criteria for allotment of accommodation to the migrant employees appointed under Prime Minister?s Special Package for rehabilitation and return of the migrants to the Valley. The petitioners have also voiced their grievance against the manner in which the respondents have made the allotment of 200 and odd units that have come up at Transit Camp Vessu, District Kulgam.

(2.) The Department of Relief and Rehabilitation (respondent Nos.1 to 3) as also respondent No.4 (JK PCC Ltd.) have contested the writ petition. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of Relief and Rehabilitation Department i.e respondent Nos. 1 to 3, their precise stand is that the petitioners, who are already having pre-fab accommodation at Transmit Camp Vessu, have illegally and unauthorisedly entered into the under construction quarters and are, therefore, rank trespassers. They are not only required to be evicted from their unauthorized occupation, but are also required to be proceeded for committing criminal trespass over the public property. The respondents have justified the communication of respondent No.3 directing the SHO, P/S Qazikund to register a formal FIR against the petitioners and others, who have taken law into their own hands and committed the offence of criminal trespass.

(3.) The JK PCC in its reply has submitted that being an executing agency, it has constructed the Government quarters meant for migrant employees appointed under Prime Minister?s package and, therefore, ostensibly there is no grievance raised by the petitioners in their petition against it.