JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BHAG DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUSTICE hurried is justice burried. This is an old legal maxim which, over and above court practices and procedures, has served, and should serve, us as a guiding caution in the process of dispensation of justice. It would be apt to the context to recall to ourselves that we, as Judges, have plentitude of judicial power in all matters concerning the general administration of justice. This power enables us to exercise control over process by regulating proceedings, by preventing abuse of process and, if necessary, by compelling observance of the process. Such jurisdiction, as a Court of Justice, may be invoked or exercised not only in relation to parties in pending proceedings, but in relation to any one, whether a party or not. We are supposedly immune from committing errors, mistakes or wrongs. We, as judges, know our absolute privileges: we have a freedom from action and question.

(2.) ALL this -the jurisdiction, the plentitude of powers the immunity and above all the freedom - not much for our sake as for the sake of the public; for advancement of justice: so as to be free in thought and the process of judgment making, that is, administration of justice. When we talk of dispensation or administration of "justice"; the word partakes and embraces the broad principles of providing a fair, reasonable and just opportunity of hearing and of defending, i. e., observance of principles of natural justice. After all, we are entrusted with the most onerous task of hearing and determining the issues before us. And when facts are in issue, the cardinal principle of justice is that no man should be condemned on mere suspicion, presumptions and, above all, without affording him an opportunity of being heard. Given the plentitude of powers, the privileges, immunity, and the freedoms, it legally behooves of us not to give to a person or a litigating party a cause to urge before a higher forum, by insistent reference to dates of proceedings, the proceedings conducted in a case and culmination of the process within a short span of period of less than a month, more so during vacations in one case and in twelve days in other case and concerning public property valuing Crores of rupees, to put across, though mincingly, that process was hurriedly burried, shrouded in mystery and, that too, without reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing. Proceedings in question may be referred to. Writ petition, titled Bhag Din and Anr. v. State of J&K and Ors. and registered as OWP No. 11/2003, was presented before the Registry of this Court during winter vacation on 14th January, 2003. The Petition came up before the learned Vacation Judge on 14th January, 2003 itself and the following order came to be passed:

(3.) THESE are three Letters Patent Appeals arising out of three writ petitions involving controversy relating to a chunk of land measuring 120 Kanals comprised in one and the same Khasra No. 533 situated at Paloura, Tehsil and District Jammu. Though the parties are different yet, the subject -matter being the same, we are proceeding to decide the three matters by this common order. The parties to these matters are two civil parties, State Government and Jammu Development Authority. Given the claims and counter claims and the messy situation that has cropped up, before we go into the merits, it has become imperative to take notice of facts, somewhat, in detail in each of the appeals.