ZAMROODA HASSAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE admitting the writ petition mentioned above to hearing the order of status quo in respect of comprising of Survey No.168 against evicting the petitioner therefrom, prohibiting raising of any construction on land comprising of Survey No.169 was passed in the CWP by a learned Bench of this court subject, to the objections of the opposite party. The respondents have now filed the objections and seek vacation of the said order.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, she has been in possession of State land measuring 4 kanals and 11 marlas comprising of Khasra No.168 in village Pandrathan and the willow trees planted by her in the said land are four decades old. Adjacent to her land, the land covered by Khasra No.169 is under National Highway.The land comprising of the said khasra numbers is linked to each other, and n case any construction is raised on the land comprising of khasra No.169, her easementary rights will be adversely affected. Moreover, as her land falls within the distance of fifty feet from the centre of the National Highway, the respondents are legally barred to raise any construction over it under the provisions of the J&K Prevention of Ribbon Development Act, She further contends that in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 26 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act. No person can be dispossessed from any land belonging to the State in which trees have been planted by any occupier, except in the manner provided there under. As she apprehends forcible dis -possession from her land, and allegedly, illegal threats have been given to her by the respondents in this regard, hence the writ petition.

(3.) IN their objections, it has been submitted by the respondents that 31 kanals and 19 marlas of land was acquired by the Collector vide its Award dated 9 -5 -1972 and the land in question also stands acquired there -under. According to them, the whole land including the land in question has been in possession of the Excise Department since then, and therefore, the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The record produced by them was also perused.