ASHAQ HUSSAIN KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition filed under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) petitioners seek quashment of charge sheet/challan No.29/16 dtd. 23/5/2016 in File No. 115/Challan presented on 6/6/2017 before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and FIR No.47/2016 dtd. 3/5/2016 registered against the petitioners for commission of offences under Ss. 353, 323, 504 and 506 RPC.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 along with one Haji Mohammad Taqi was allotted EP H.No.472 (measuring 3 Marlas 12 Sq. Ft.) situated at Talab Khatikan, Jammu. After his death, the petitioner No.1 along-with one Showkat Ali was allotted the same. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 is running a hotel under name and style M/s Taj Hotel in front of the said land. The said structure over the land was being used for commercial purposes. It is further stated that the petitioner No.I along with Showkat Ali (Allottees) have been depositing yearly rent for E.P. H.No.472 with the office of respondent Nos.2 and 3, regularly for the past more than 50 years. It is further stated that at the time of yearly renewal of allotment in the year 1997 with regard to E.P. H.No.472, the petitioner No. 1 and his brother approached the office of respondent No.3 for deposition of the rent, but the same was deferred by the said respondents on the ground that renewal of allotment would be possible only when the rent for the premises would be enhanced. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 went into deep slumber, on one hand they did not enhance the rent at all and on the other did not even accept the rent from the petitioner No.1 on the ground that the same would be accepted only after being enhanced retrospectively. It is stated that the J&K Government has initiated a road widening project from Rajinder Bazar to Talab Khatikan and for the said purpose, it was requisite that some commercial structures be realigned/demolished and the said road project included demolition of the building structures belonging to the petitioners as well situated on E.P. H.No. 472, to which the petitioners were never averse.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the respondent No. 2 in terms of its office communication No.RS-EP/472/618-20/2013 dtd. 2/12/2013 served a notice upon petitioner No.I whereby he was given one day to vacate EP H.No.472. Talab Khatikan, Jammu so that the same can be dismantled /demolished. It is stated that petitioner No.1 was running his business in the said building and it was impossible for him to suddenly vacate the same on such short notice served upon him in an illegal and unjustified manner, therefore, he immediately approached the respondent No.2 and 3 who assured petitioner No.1 that no such action would be taken against him. It is further stated that with regard to the road widening project, a meeting of various officials was convened on 11/3/2016, under the Chairmanship of ADC, Jammu wherein it was decided that the issue of road widening would be expedited and the individuals including the petitioner No.1 would be suitably rehabilitated. Thereafter, another meeting was held on 24/3/2016 under the Chairmanship of ADC, Jammu wherein the rehabilitation of the petitioner No.1 was main part of the agenda. It is stated that the minutes of the meeting envisage that the allotment of the petitioner No.I had already been cancelled on the basis of non- payment of rent. It is submitted that on coming to know about the cancellation of allotment, the petitioner No.1 again immediately approached the office of respondent No.3 and he was assured that before any eviction is ordered against him, he would be rehabilitated suitably in a short span of time, process of which was already underway. On 3/5/2016 around 10-11 AM, the complainant along-with Assistant Custodian, Jammu, Additional Deputy Commissioner Jammu (Administration), Joint Director Municipality, Khilafwarzi officer, SDPO, respondent No. 1 and reinforcement of more than 200 police officials along with JCBs came onto the said property of the petitioner No.1 i.e., EP H.No. 472 and forcibly trespassed into his property. On enquiring, the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were verbally informed by the complainant that their building needs to be demolished for the road widening project. The petitioner No.1 repeatedly requested the complainant and other officials present on spot to at least show them the notice in pursuance to which they are demolishing their building, but the complainant and others, forcibly pushed the petitioner No.I to 3 out of the building area. Since the complainant party was mishandling the petitioner No.1 to 3, the petitioner No. 4 who was passing by intervened and tried to stop them but the complainant party was very strong and threw them out on the pretext that since petitioner Nos.1 to 3 had already been rehabilitated by the Evacuees Property Department and the complainant kept repeating the same over and over again. He openly declared that he had been directed by some political rival of the petitioner No.1 to get the structures on EP H.No.472 demolished. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 asked the complainant for documentary proof of alleged rehabilitation by the E.P. Department, he had no answer for the same. Petitioner nos.1 to 3 were taken back to see so many police officials at their work place and before they would resort to any legal remedy, their entire structure/building situated over said land except one room was demolished. Feeling mentally agonized and harassed because of the unlawful and arbitrary action of the complainant and the concerned officials present on spot, petitioner No.1 immediately approached the office of respondent No.2 for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner No.1 obtained a copy of order dtd. 30/11/2013 issued by the office of respondent No.3 which envisaged that the allotment of the above stated Evacuee Property belonging to the petitioner No. 1 has been cancelled. The order further envisaged that no objection certificate has been issued by the Office of respondent No.2 vide his Office No. CG (E.P.) 1575/2002 dtd. 20/02/2002 subject to the condition that compensation is paid to the Evacuees Department as per prevalent market rate in respect of the said land whereas the petitioner was never rehabilitated or paid any compensation in this regard.