Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 30: A Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Rajesh Sekri has imposed cost of Rs 50000 on petitioner Ramneek Singh, who has abused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions for the same relief.
The DB observed, “the fate of OWP No. 1167/2010 is dependent upon that of OWP No. 177/2007. The facts in both these writ petitions are almost identical. The auction notice dated 09.02.2007 issued by the respondent regarding piece of land measuring 5410 sq. ft. comprising Khasra No. 665 min, situated on Janipur-Bantalab Road has been impugned in OWP No. 177/07 whereas the auction notice dated 28.09.2010 with respect to same land has been impugned in OWP No. 1167/2010”.
“In fact, the petitioner embarked upon a journey in the year 2000 for regularization of his alleged possession over the land measuring 5410 sq ft situated at Paloura by challenging auction notice dated 28.09.2000 issued by respondents. The writ petition bearing OWP No. 809/2000 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Single Judge in terms of order dated 11.12.2000 by directing the respondents to take a notice of the observations made by the Division Bench in LPA(OW) No. 298/2K, titled, “M/s Aggarwal Steels vs State of J&K and others” decided on 23.11.2000″, the DB observed.
The petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 11.12.2000 preferred intra-court appeal against the same but did not prosecute the same leading to the dismissal of LPA (OWP) No. 167 of 2001 vide order dated 20.07.2002. Five years after the dismissal of LPA (OWP) No. 167 of 2001, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing OWP No. 177/2007 for quashing of auction notice bearing No. JDA/Site/CA/236 dated 08.02.2007, whereby the land measuring 5410 sq. ft was being auctioned by the respondents Nos. 3&4 and a prayer was also made for regularizing/allotment of the same in the name of petitioner and also for not evicting the petitioner from the land in question.
“The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is primarily based upon the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner in the year 1978 for allotment of land though subsequently, he has restricted his claim to 15 marlas of land. It needs to be noted that the application was filed by the petitioner for the purpose of establishing industrial unit and later, the intended use was changed from industrial purpose to residential purpose”, the DB said, adding “it is not in dispute that the land in question is a prime land having high market value as is evident from the bid accepted earlier by the respondent”.
“The issue that arises for consideration of this court is whether merely pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner, the land can be allotted to him”, the DB further said, adding “we are of the considered view that merely filing of an application for allotment of the land in the absence of any advertisement so as to enable other similarly situated persons to participate in the allotment process and the subsequent processing of the application without further resulting into allotment of the land in the name of petitioner does not confer any right upon him to seek allotment of the land in his favour”.
With these observations, Division Bench said, “there is no merit in the present writ petition. As the petitioner has abused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions for the same relief, therefore, we dismiss this writ petition with cost of Rs 50,000. As a natural corollary, the writ petition bearing OWP No. 1167/2010 is also dismissed”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel