LACHHMAN DASS Vs. TEHSILDAR R S PURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition for quashing the order of the Tehsildar R. S. Pura dated 24 -6 -1968 and that of the respondent No. 2 (Naib Tehsildar R. S. Pura) who in pursuance of the order of the Tehsildar evicted the petitioner on 14 -7 -1968. The petition recites that a dispute relating to a path in Kh. No. 63/2 in village Maralya Tehsil R. S Pura arose between the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 before the Tehsildar R. S. Pura. The case was transfered to the file of the Tehsildar Jammu. The Tehsildar Jammu by means of his order dated 14 -7 -1965 ordered the removal of the obstruction u/s 4 of the J & K Common Land (Regulation) Act No. XXIV of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the act in this judgment), which order was ultimately .confirmed by the Financial Commissioner. The Tehsildar R. S. Pura without any jurisdiction started execution proceedings against the petitioners and directed his Naib Tehsildar to eject them. The respondent No. 2 the Naib Tehsildar is not a Revenue Officer within the meaning of the Act and inspite of that fact he ejected the petitioner on 14 -7 -1968 from this land with the assitance of the police Another Kh. No 268 -min situate in village Bansultan was also included by the respondent No. 2 in these ejectment proceedings. The main grounds of the petitioners are that the impugned order was passed by the Tehsildar famrnu who never transfered it to the respondent No. 1 and therefore respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to order eviction. Secondly the Tehsildar could not delegate his powers under the Act to the Naib Tehsildar who was not a Revenue Officer within the meaning of the Act. The inclusion of Kh No 268 -min in these ejectment proceedings was also ultravires. A copy of the peport of the Naib Tehsildar dated 14 -7 -1968 also has been placed on the file.

(2.) THE respondent 1 and 2 in their objection stated that the Naib Tehsildar was directed by the Tehsildar to execute the final orders of the Financial Commissioner confirming the orders of the Tehsildar and Dy. Commissioner Jammu. There was no lack of jurisdiction and no right of the petitioners has been infringed.

(3.) A further petition was submitted on behalf of the petitioners wherein it is stated that there was no dispute in respect of Eh. No. 268 -min in village Bansultan and therefore, the removal of obstruction from that number in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 was not justifiable.. The other respondents 3 and 4 also have put in their objections. A further application has been moved by the petitioners in which it is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition the third respondent made an application on 19 -1 -1969 with respect to Kh. No. 268 -min mentioned above to the Tehsildar under the Act who forwarded the same to the Naib Tehsildar but the Naib Tehsildar returned it with the report tha (3) A further petition was submitted on behalf of the petitioners wherein it is stated that there was no dispute in respect of Eh. No. 268 -min in village Bansultan and therefore, the removal of obstruction from that number in favour of the respondents 3 and 4 was not justifiable.. The other respondents 3 and 4 also have put in their objections. A further application has been moved by the petitioners in which it is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition the third respondent made an application on 19 -1 -1969 with respect to Kh. No. 268 -min mentioned above to the Tehsildar under the Act who forwarded the same to the Naib Tehsildar but the Naib Tehsildar returned it with the report tha he had no jurisdiction to hear this petition. This report of the Naib Tehsildar has further supported the contention of the petitioners.