LAWS(J&K)-1985-9-12

AB AHAD RATHER Vs. STATE

Decided On September 25, 1985
Ab Ahad Rather Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANDAMUS is sought against the respondents to the effect that the period of lease in respect of plot of land No. 11 situated at Rajbagh Narsingh Gar Eatatesh Srinagar should be forty years and not twenty years as envisaged in the Government order No. Rev (NDK) 295 of 1979 dated II. 10. 1979.

(2.) IT is submitted that four kanals of land were leased out to one Mian Abdul Rashid which was subsequently transferred to Lala Tirath Ram Amla. Thereafter on the application of Lala Tirath Ram Amla, the land was transferred in the name of the petitioner as leaseholder on 8. 1. 1970. The lease in favour of original lesses, Mian Abdul Rashid was to expire on 13 -7 -1980. The petitioner thereafter applied for extention of forty years lease under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Act of 1960. The respondents renewed the lease only for twenty years and not for forty years. Petitioner submits that in similar circumstances the lease was extended for forty years in case of Dr. Mehboob Afzal son of Mirza Afzal Beg who was then the cabinet Minister. The same was done in respect of wife of Sonam Nerboo who was also a Cabinet Minister, Petitioner was discriminated against. She was entitled to be treated similarly with the two persons in whose favour forty years lease was granted.

(3.) COUNTER was filed by one Syed Amin Shah, Additional Secretary to Government Revenue Department , it is admitted that in the case of Dr. Mehboob Afzal Beg and Yanehan Spalzes wife of sonam Narboo lease was extended for forty years But it is submitted that those leases were executed much before However, record of those leases has not been produced. The plots of land leased out to the petitioner and those leased out to the two persons aforesaid are admitted to be similar. Consequently their lease cannot to made for different terms to different persons. If the original lease was made on same terms which would vary from one case to another, that is not relevant for the determination of the present case. It is the extension which is questioned in this writ petition. Extension of lease in the case of son of Cabinet Minister and wife of Cabinet Minister has been granted for forty years, but in the case of the petitioner it is only twenty years. This on the face of it appears to be discriminatory.