HC directs Div Com to demarcate land at Sunjwan

Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, Apr 6: High Court has directed the Divisional Commissioner Jammu to constitute a team of officers in order to conduct the demarcation of a big chunk of land to which the Government as also the private persons are claiming to be its owners.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar keeping in view the totality of circumstances obtaining in the case, directed the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu to constitute a team of officers of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and not subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, within a period of three weeks to demarcate the land measuring 32 kanal situated at village Sunjwan.
Court while conducting the process of demarcation directed the team to follow the provisions of Land Revenue Act, particularly Sections 94 and 95 thereof and the Rules framed in this behalf. “The demarcation exercise shall be conducted by the team, so constituted, in the presence of all stakeholders, within a period of four weeks of its constitution”, Court added.
The private persons claim to be owner in possession of land admeasuring 3 kanals and 4 marlas situated at Chowadi Tehsil Bahu District Jammu. They submit that since the land is a prime land and, therefore, there had been several attempts by the State as well as private individuals to lay claim thereon.
The Crime Branch even registered an FIR bearing No.06/2009 on the allegation that the petitioner had encroached upon the State land but upon investigation, the claim was not substantiated and a closure report was filed by the Crime Branch, which was accepted by the court.
The court has been informed that the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu along with a team of officers and police came on the land of the petitioner and forcibly and in total disregard of law not only demolished the boundary wall erected by the petitioner but also damaged the structure raised by the petitioner on her land.
The court, vide its order dated 04.10.2019 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu as also the Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority to furnish a report as to the nature of possession of the petitioner over the land, sought to be vacated.
While the writ petition and the contempt petition was pending adjudication, authorities vide Government order No.53-JK(Rev) of 2020 dated 19.05.2020 accorded sanction to the grant of land on lease @ 8 marla each to 32 families of village Satwari and 6 marla each to 29 families of village Narwal Pain of Tehsil Jammu South District Jammu, who were affected due to airport expansion.
It is the claim of the petitioner that this land, which has been allotted to 32 families of Satwari and 29 families of village Narwal Pain at the rate of eight marla each and six marlas each respectively, is a proprietary land in possession of the petitioner.
Being confronted with the Government order and with a view to thwart any attempt by the respondent-authorities to dispossess the petitioner from her proprietary land, the petitioner filed another petition and lodged challenge to the impugned Government Order dated 19.06.2020 by virtue of which land measuring 32 kanals falling in Khasra No.833 of village Sunjwan Tehsil Bahu District Jammu has been identified for rehabilitation of 61 families affected due to acquisition of land for expansion of Jammu Airport.
Justice Kumar after having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record said the very serious and complicated disputed questions of fact are involved for determination in these writ petitions. “This court sitting in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate complicated disputed questions of fact, which require detailed evidence, oral as well as documentary”, Justice Kumar added.
“I am, therefore, not in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner that this court should constitute an independent commission of some past revenue experts to resolve the dispute. It is so because the Land Revenue Act is a complete code in itself for determination of all sorts of disputes pertaining to land”, the court concluded.