Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Feb 13: High Court today said that the concept of rule of law would lose its essence when authorities of the State are not held responsible for discharging their duty in fair and just manner.
Quashing the orders of Deputy Commissioner, wherein directions were passed for removing all structures erected on a big chunk of land for purpose of developing the land into an orchard, Justice M K Hanjura said these orders have been issued in clear disregard to the provision of Land Revenue Act as development of orchard is not a non-agricultural purpose
Court did not stop here and said there is no bar to use this land even for residential purposes as the orders of Deputy Commissioner have been issued in breach of clear terms of Sections 133-B, 133-C of the Land Revenue Act.
Making clear that authorities should function in a fair and just manner, court said, the requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously.
“In recent years the concept of quasi-judicial power has been undergoing a radical change. What was considered as an administrative power some years back, is now being considered as a quasi-judicial power”, High Court said.
The petitioner asserts that he is in possession and occupation of 138 kanals of the land as the lawful attorney situated in Estate Singhpora and Estate Dever Yakhmanpora, Pattan, Baramulla.
The kind of soil of the said land, according to the petitioner, is maidani and a few kanals of the land are recorded as swampy. This land, it is affirmed, is not agricultural land within the meaning and contemplation of Section 133-A of the J&K Land Revenue Act. The petitioner has proceeded to state that he planned to develop the land, which is barren in nature into an orchard and accordingly, he erected a boundary wall, besides laying the service roads for the proper management and convenient passage/carriage of the produce.
Petitioner submits that authorities have caused undue interference with the developmental activity undertaken and carried at the site which is not in tune with the provisions of Land Revenue Act.
In this connection Deputy Commissioner Baramulla by his orders bearing no.DCB/SQ/608-10 dated 14th June 2012 and no.DCB/SQ/598-602 dated 14th June 2012, directed his subordinates to remove all kinds of structures/roads constructed on the land and submit the report.
Court said that the dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated. For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power, one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom it is conferred, the framework of the law conferring that power, the consequences ensuing from the exercise of that power and the manner in which that power is expected to be exercised.
As such court made clear that the Collector or any other authorized officer not below the rank of the Assistant Collector of the first class, under Section 133-C of the Land Revenue Act, is the exclusive authority to act and deal with the case(s) concerning contravention to provisions of Section 133-A of the Act.
“Thus, the power to issue show cause notice and to consider and decide the response, if any, to the show cause notice and take subsequent action and decision, is exclusive province of the authority under the auspices of Section 133-C. The recommendations, if any, made by any other authority or for that matter by the House Committee will not, as such, triumph over or abate the authority of the Collector. Having said so, impugned action culminated in impugned order is vitiated in law”, court said.
Court further directed the respondents not to cause any interference with the exercise of ownership and possessory rights of the petitioner in the matter of its use, enjoyment, possession and occupation by the petitioner.
Follow our WhatsApp channel