KANTA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, claiming to be owner and in possession of land measuring 64 Kanals comprised in Khasra no. 62-min, Khewat no.46, Khata no.323; Khasra nos.1115/4 & 118/4, Khewat no.46, Khata no.323 situated at Deeli, Tehsil and District Jammu, has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the respondents to forbear from causing any interference in her possession, occupation and enjoyment of the land in question or from forcibly evicting her therefrom. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from installing police post over the land in question.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner purchased land measuring 34 Kanals 12 Kanals comprised in Khasra no.62-min, Khewat no.46, Khata no.323; another 12 kanals comprised in the same Khasra number; 10 Kanals comprised in Khasra nos. 1115/4 and 118/4, Khewat no.46, Khata no.323 situated at Deeli, Jammu, from one Charan Dass son of Sh. Lekh Raj resident of Gadigarh, Jammu, through his attorney Shri Baldev Singh son of Sh. Nanak Chand resident of Sai Tehsil R. S. Pura vide sale deed dated 16.05.2005. It is further averred, that the petitioner also purchased land measuring 14 Kanals comprised under Khasra no.62-min, Khewat no.46, Khata no.323 from one Paras Ram son of Sh. Dayal Chand resident of Gadigarh, Jammu through his attorney named above vide another sale deed dated 16.05.2005. Again, vide an even dated sale deed, the petitioner is also stated to have purchased land measuring 16 Kanals comprised in the same Khasra, Khewat and Khata from one Shri Janak Singh son of Shri Prithvi Singh resident of Jandial, Iabat Bhalwal, Jammu, through his attorney named above.

(3.) It is further averred that the aforesaid land had vested in the erstwhile owners from whom the petitioner purchased the same, after the same was allotted in their favour in terms of Government order no.254 of 1965 dated 07.07.1965 passed under Allotment of Land to Displaced Persons Rules, 1954 and thus ownership rights had been conferred on the erstwhile owners thereof. It is submitted that on purchase of the land by the petitioner and taking possession thereof, she became the absolute owner of the land in question and, consequently, mutations, too, were attested in her favour.