ANOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while deprecating the practice of taking inconsistent stands by a litigant at different stages of same litigation, in Amar Singh v. Union of India , (2011) 7 SCC 69, has observed as under:

(2.) The petitioner No.1 had earlier filed the writ petition bearing OWP No. 437/2014 in order to protect his possession qua the house No. 289 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, wherein interim direction was issued to the respondent No.3 not to evict the petitioner forcibly from the house mentioned above. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 issued the order dtd. 30/6/2014, thereby holding that the alienation of house No.289 situated at Jawahar Nagar Srinagar, having been made without the permission and in contravention of the provisions contained in Sec. 3 (b) of the Jammu and Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales), Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Migrant Act"), was null and void and directed for the vacation of the house and restoration of the possession thereof in favour of the respondent No.7 i.e. the migrant.

(3.) The petitioners thereafter filed the writ petition bearing OWP No.999/2014 assailing the order dtd. 30/6/2014 issued by the respondent No.3. The abovementioned writ petition was disposed of by the Court vide order dtd. 11/3/2015, thereby setting aside the order dtd. 30/6/2014 and the matter was remanded back to the respondent No.3 to return a finding whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the property falls within the ambit of the Migrant Act, whether the petitioners can be termed as unauthorised occupants of the house, especially so when they claim to be in possession on the basis of alleged sale of the house thereof in their favour by the respondent No.7. Subsequently, pursuant to the application moved by the petitioners, by virtue of order dtd. 2/6/2015, the Court issued a clarification that in terms of the directions passed by the Court vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2015, the District Magistrate shall also consider the admission made by the respondent No.7 vis-a-vis status of the petitioners as tenants thereof.