Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, June 11: CJM Jammu Amarjeet Singh has dismissed an application seeking stay on retrieval of 152 Kanals and 16 Marlas State land situated at village Chak Bhalwal in Bhalwal tehsil of Jammu district.
After going through the arguments of counsel for the applicant, the court observed, “applicants have not sought declaration as a relief in the main suit to the effect that they are in continuous, long, settled and peaceful possession of suit land right from the period of their ancestors/predecessors in interest”.
“Instead, they have straightway sought relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in main suit on the basis of purported claim of their long and settled possession whereas there is nothing on record except photocopy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 2018 showing applicants Abdul Majid and Ghulam Rasool in possession of some portion of suit land”, the court said, adding “ironically, when suit land admittedly happens to be State land, it then is not understandable as to how the name of applicant Abdul Majid has been reflected in the ownership column of revenue extract”.
“It also needs to be noted that if someone occupies Government land on account of administrative apathy for some period of time, the character of possession cannot be equated with settled, effective or un-disturbed possession. It also needs to be under-scored that horror story of encroachment over Government land has many facets”, the court said, adding “collusion and connivance with Government officials and patronage of influential is one such facet”.
The mode and manner adopted in attestation of mutations with regard to suit land purportedly under J&K State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001, as revealed in the order dated 06.02.2020 passed by Deputy Commissioner Jammu would show that if observance of law and rules is allowed to rest on the whim of those who are supposed to observe and implement the same in letter and spirit, the only inevitable consequence in such scenario is perpetuation of private profiteering over public property, the CJM said.
“The applicants have not succeeded in establishing prima facie case in their favour. The balance of convenience is also heavily tilted against applicants on facts. The third ingredient of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, on facts, also does not lean in favour of applicants”, the court said while dismissing the application.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel