AKHTAR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF J & K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that he is owner of the house situated at Chak Hidyal in village Kishtwar of District Kishtwar, the construction whereof was raised in the year 1971. The petitioner, further, claims that he is doctor by profession, working in London (England) and the house in question, in his absence, is being looked after by his power of attorney holders, namely, Khursheed Ahmad Malik and Mohammad Younus Malik. The writ petition in hand is also filed by the petitioner, Dr. Akhtar Hussain through these attorneys. The short grievance of the petitioner, as is projected in this petition, is that although the order of Divisional Commissioner, Jammu dated 12.04.2008 passed in File/Appeal No./2000 titled Vidhya Lal v. Mohd. Amin Sheikh, which pertains to some land comprised in Survey Nos.1523 of village Kishtwar and 2179 of village Chak Amada Moza Kishtwar (Matta), respectively and is binding on the parties before the Divisional Commissioner, yet the petitioner has reasons to apprehend that the official respondents in connivance with the respondents 9 to 14 are all set to dispossess the petitioner from his immovable property, i.e., his three-storied house constructed on land measuring 1 kanal and 18 marlas situated in Chak Hidyal, village Kishtwar. It is, thus, contended that the respondents have no legal authority or competence to dispossess the petitioner from his house, which is in his occupation since its construction in the year 1971. The petitioner, however, has fairly stated that he does not possess any land either in Survey No.1523 of village Kishtwar or Survey No.2179 of village Chak Amda Moza Kishtwar (Matta), which was subject matter of adjudication in the appeal between Vidhya Lal and Mohammad Amin Sheikh decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu on 12.04.2008.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2008 (supra), but is aggrieved of the manner in which the officials of the Revenue Department, on the pretext of executing the order of Divisional Commissioner, Jammu dated 12.04.2008, are proceeding and threatening the petitioner to dispossess him of his three-storied house, which neither falls in Survey No.1523 of village Kishtwar nor Survey No.2179 of Chak Amada Moza Kishtwar (Matta). The petitioner relies upon a copy of the 'Aks Masavi Tajavaz Chowgan' of village Kishtwar of the year 1965 to claim that the land measuring 1 kanal and 18 marlas, where the petitioner has constructed his three-storied house, has been in his possession since the year 1965. There is another document placed on record by the petitioner known as 'Aks Latha' for the year 1965 to substantiate his claim that the land aforesaid, where the house of the petitioner is situated, was recorded in the possession of Mohd. Abdullah, S/o Anwar and Ghulam Hassan S/o Munwar Malik in the year 1965. It is, further, the case of the petitioner that he got married to the grand- daughter of Ghulam Hassan and was thereafter handed over the possession of this land in the year 1971 by Ghulam Hassan and Mohd. Abdullah. He, therefore, raised the construction of the house, which is in existence as on date. With a view to substantiate his possession on the aforesaid land, he has relied upon the copy of 'Aks Latha' of the year 1985. Be that as it may, the long and short of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land measuring 1 kanal and 18 marlas situated in Chak Hidyal, where the petitioner has constructed a three-storied house, has been in his possession since the year 1965. Earlier, it was in possession of Ghulam Hassan, the grand-father of the wife of the petitioner, and thereafter, it was handed over to the petitioner in the year 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the several documents placed on record to substantiate his submissions.

(3.) Per contra, the respondents No.9 to 14, who have opposed this petition, in their reply affidavit submit that the petitioner has no right, title or interest with respect to the land falling in Survey Nos.1523 and 2179, which was subject matter of adjudication before the Divisional Commissioner in the appeal between Vidhya Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and one Mohammad Amin Sheikh. It is, thus, submitted that since the petitioner does not claim right, title or interest in the aforesaid land, which the officials of respondent- department are in the process of restoring in favour of the private respondents, as such, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition. Petitioner by twisting of facts and jugglery of words cannot stall the execution of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which has since attained finality. The private respondents emphatically dispute the claim of the petitioner that he is owner in possession of land measuring 1 kanal and 18 marlas situated in Chak Hidyal of village Kishtwar. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently, submits that from all the record that has been appended with the petition by the petitioner, it is nowhere discernible as to which land the house claimed by the petitioner is situated on. It is claimed that the petitioner with the assistance of some of his close relations, who at particular point of time, were serving as revenue officers in Kishtwar, has forcibly occupied some land and un-authorizedly constructed the house. Learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents, however, submits that the private respondents are only interested to see that the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 12.04.2008, which has attained finality, is given effect to and the land owned and possessed by the private respondents comprising Survey Nos.1523 and 2179 is restored to them free from all encumbrances and occupations. The petitioner, who does not claim any land in the aforesaid Survey Nos. has no locus to stall the restoration of the possession of the aforesaid land in favour of the private respondents. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents is at pains to take me through the litigation, which the private respondents were foisted upon by Mohammad Amin Sheikh and others. There was an order of attachment by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also an order whereby the property, i.e. land measuring 1 kanal and 14 marlas in Survey No.1523, which was attached by the Executive Magistrate was later on released. The case of the private respondents is that, though there was an order of attachment of land measuring 1 kanal and 14 marlas in Survey No.1523 of village Kishtwar but on spot the land of the private respondents falls in Survey No.2179 too was attached and there ensued a litigation between the private respondents and Mohd. Amin Sheikh and others. Be that as it may, keeping in view the nature of controversy involved and the short grievance projected by the petitioner, I am of the view that the detailed narration of facts is not necessary for the disposal of this petition and, therefore, the relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this petition, have been taken note of hereinabove.