MOHD. SHABIR Vs. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant writ petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

(2.) The grievance projected by the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that originally the land mentioned above (in the prayer clause) belongs to one-Zulfkar Ali S/o Mohd. Ismail R/O Village Thudi, Tehsil and District, Rajouri and thereafter, in the year 2008, the same came under the possession and occupation of the petitioners and in this regard, the revenue entry was also made in favour of the petitioners by the concerned Revenue Department, which categorically shows the name of the petitioners in the revenue record and the same is in active possession of the petitioners till date. The petitioners also constructed their respective residential houses where they are presently putting up along with their families and they have also taken the loan from different banks for raising construction over the said land. In the year 2000, as the petitioners have migrated from the hilly areas due to rise in militancy and have somehow managed the above mentioned land for their residence. The petitioners have no other alternative land in their possession except the only land, where the petitioners have constructed their residential houses for residential purpose so as to give the family members a roof to live in.

(3.) It is stated in the instant writ petition that in the year 2010, the State Legislature has passed a legislation, i.e., J&K State Lands (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby it is settled that any person, who is the resident of State of Jammu and Kashmir and is in possession and occupation of the State land has a right to be given the ownership right, subject to the condition that the person has to pay the requisite amount, as settled by the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. The petitioners being eligible in all respects, applied before the respondent No. 2 , i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri for allotment of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioners as per the provisions of the aforesaid Act. The petitioners were ready to pay the requisite amount to be assessed by the Committee headed by the respondent No. 2. Despite the request made by the petitioners for allotment of the aforesaid land in their favour under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the fact that the petitioners were ready to deposit the amount, which was required to be fixed by the Committee headed by the respondent No. 2, the respondents have slept over the matter for the resons best known to them and have allotted the land in their favour, thereby causing prejudice to their rights.