GIAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The psyche of a person in possession over public land is the same all over the country. The city of Jammu can be no exception. The psyche is to perpetuate possession as long as possible. A person in possession of some areas abutting on a public street makes an all out effort to occupy as much area as possible of that portion which is part of public street. First an over head projection is built. Then there is an aggressive effort to occupy the land under the projection. The goods meant for sale are displayed on pavement, leaving no space for a pedestrian to move on pavements. The situation in this petition is not different.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under :-The petitioner submits that he is engaged in the business of steel works, Hardware Store and Welding fabrication in an establishment said to be situated at Jewal Chowk/B. C. Road, Jammu. Eleven rooms as per the petitioner stand constructed. The covered area is said to be 2747 square feet. This is comprised in Khasra No. 273 Min. The possession is said to be more than 30 years old. This has been described as peaceful. The petitioner has not indicated the source from which he derived his possessory rights. He claims regularisation of possession in pursuance of Government order No. Rev (NDJ) 46 of 1973. This is dated 28th of January, 1973. Reliance in this regard is placed on a communication addressed by Assistant Commissioner, Nazool, Jammu to Director Land Measurement Jammu. No objection certificate was sought. Thus no objection certificate has not been issued so far. Regularisation of possession is sought. Some instances have been cited in para 14 of the petition in which possessions have been regularised.

(3.) The respondents have filed reply. It is stated that the land has come under a fly over. The possession of the petitioner has been denied. It is further stated that communication seeking no objection certificate is with regard to different land. The specific plea taken is that land measuring 2747 square feet has come under the fly over. It is broadly on these plea rejection of the petition is sought.The questions which require consideration are :-(i) Whether the municipal authorities owe an obligation to the citizens of this country to see that the public property is not permitted to be encroached upon?(ii) Whether the piece of land on which permission is being claimed is part of public street?(iii) To what use public streets can be put?(iv) Whether any civil or criminal liability is incurred when public streets are encroached upon?