H WALI MOHD Vs. ADMINISTRATOR JAMMU MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four petition raise common questions oflaw and fact and would therefore be decided by one judgment, indicating individual cases wherever necessary.

(2.) ALL the petitioners are purchasers of the premises in dispute which were originally owned by Dawan Bishan Das, as ex -Prime Minister of the State who, according to the petitioners, was in possession of the property for more than 76 years. The vendor of the petitioners had after acquiring the land constructed several huge buildings and structures as a result of which the properties were rendered very valuable. A portion of the property was in possession of the tenants of Bishan Das who were asked to attorn to the new purchasers after the heirs of Bishan Dass sold the property to the petitioners. The property in question is situate in Meghar -mal and consists of residential houses, buildings and sheds and open lands. The Petitioner, Haji Abdul Aziz Shah, his wife, one Abdul Salam Shah and H. Mohd. Ramzan Shah purchases 9. Marlas and 10,000 sq ft of the property bearing Khasra Nos 885 and 890 by two separate sale deeds registered on 12.1.67 and 8 12. 67. Similarly Haji Wali Mohd. by a sale deed dated 7 -12 -67 purchased land measuring 25704 -5" along with buildings garages situate in Sarai Pain near the Exhibition ground. After purchasing the aforesaid property, this petitioners stated his own commercial establishment and busi ­ness headquarters.

(3.) IT is not disputed by the State that the premises were purchased by the petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned above, nor is it denied that prior to the demolition of the buildings the premises in dispute were in possession of Parnesh Chandra and others who were the heirs of Dawan Bishan Das Thus prima facie it would appear that the undisputed possession of the vendors of petitioners has been clearly admitted by the State in all the petitions. The concerned officers however, alleged that the lands were Wasidari lands (Government lands) and were leased out to Diwan Bishan Das for purposes of con ­structing buildings. The lease granted to the said Bishan Das was governed by Wasidari Rules which were later on amended by the Lands Grants Act of 1960 and under the provisions of this Act as also the rules framed thereunder the State had the right to resume the lands for a public purpose after paying compensation to the lessees. Although the State has by no means adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the lands in question were Wasidari lands in as much as they have neither produced the counterpart of the lease deed nor have they produced the Nazool register to show that the lands in question were Nazool lands, yet for purposes of this case we shall assume that the lands in question were Wasidari Nazool lands leased out to Bishan Das a long time back. In fact the only documentary evidence produced by the State before us consists of a copy of Jamabardi where the lands are shown as Khalsa Sirkar i. e lands owned by the State and Bishan Das is shown as a tenant in possession. As the petitioners also do not want us to go into the question of title but decide this case on the assumption that the lands are Wasidari lands, we would refrain from making any observations regarding the title of the petitioners or of their vandors in these writ petitions. Any casual observation made in these petition will not therefore prejudice the rights of either party.