GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of Order No. Secy./JDA/PS/640-43 dtd. 10/11/2015 regarding plot No. 267 measuring 20' X 40' at New Bahu Fort, Housing Colony Jammu, issued by respondents No. 2 and 3 whereby allotment made in favour of petitioner with respect to aforesaid plot was cancelled and Director Land Management was directed to take over the possession of the plot in question.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition as pleaded are that father of the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 267 in Qasim Nagar, Jammu in the year 1989 on perpetual lease for sole purpose of construction of a residential house on a premium of Rs.3500.00 and a lease deed came to be executed in his favour on 9/11/1989. After the demise of the father of petitioner, a suit for declaration declaring the petitioner as legal heir of the deceased, Munshi Ram, allottee of Plot No. 267 was filed. Petitioner, accordingly, obtained a declaration having filed a suit in the Court of learned Munsiff Jammu declaring to be the only legal heir and owner of plot in question. Thereafter, petitioner approached respondent No.2, Vice Chairman, JDA for transfer of the lease hold rights in his favour and respondent No. 2 granted permission for transfer of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner on the same terms and conditions contained in the erstwhile lease deed. Ultimately the lease hold rights were conferred upon the petitioner who was directed to get the lease deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Jammu. Lease deed, thus, came to be registered in favour of the petitioner and possession was handed over to him. It is contention of the petitioner that the respondents having joined together to cancel the lease deed and are trying to dispossess him without any right or authority of law.

(3.) Objections have been filed by the respondents, wherein, it is stated that petitioner is not entitled for allotment of plot in question as same has been obtained by him by suppressing the true facts and when it came to their notice, allotment was cancelled by passing the order impugned. It is categorically stated by the respondents that in the year 1988, Housing & Urban Development Department decided to shift the inhabitants of Qasim Nagar and provide them alternative residential plots for their rehabilitation. Father of the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 267 vide Letter No.JDA/QN/1444-555 dtd. 10/10/1988 with the condition that he will surrender the possession of the house at Qasim Nagar and execute lease deed immediately after taking the possession. Possession was handed over to the father of the petitioner by Executive Engineer, Division No. II JDA Vide No. JDA/II/QN25090-12 dtd. 2/11/1988 and after taking possession of plot in question, father of the petitioner made representation stating that he wants alternate plot as he did not wish to take plot in question and on his request, Plot No.312 was allotted to him in lieu of plot in question. It is stated that father of the petitioner after getting Plot No. 312 in lieu of Plot No. 267 surrendered/vacated the possession of the Plot No. 267 in favour of the respondent-JDA and the petitioner after lapse of about 24 years came up with a representation dtd. 23/9/2013 to respondent No. 3 for transfer of plot in question in his favour, being legal heir of Munshi Ram, the original allottee. Petitioner, in fact, has deliberately and intentionally concealed the fact from the respondent-authority that his father obtained Plot No. 312 in lieu of Plot No. 267. It is urged that respondent, on receiving a complaint from one Pardeep Kumar S/O late Sh. Gian Chand that Munshi Ram holds three plots in violation of norms and rules of JDA, constituted a Committee of Officers to ascertain factual position regarding allotment made in favour of father of the petitioner. Committee submitted its report whereby afore-narrated facts came to the knowledge of the respondents that father of the petitioner obtained allotment of Plot No. 312 in lieu of Plot No. 267 and had also surrendered the possession, in favour of respondent-JDA at that point of time.