Sr. No. 3
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
OWP No. 744/2006
Pronounced on: - 31.01.2024
Bansi Lal Gupta
…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through:- Mr. R. S. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ashwani Thakur, Advocate
V/s
State of J&K and others
…..Respondent(s)
Through:- Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr. S. S. Nanda, Sr. AAG
Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate
CORAM : RS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE M
JUDGMENT
01. The petitioner seeks quashing of order No.VC/742-50/PS dated
21.09.2006, issued by respondent No. 2, whereby, the allotment of
land in Khasra No. 62, measuring 6 kanals and 13
petitioner’s
marlas situated at village Deeli, Tehsil and District Jammu, has
been cancelled.
02. The Jammu Development Authority allotted land measuring 6
kanals and 13 marlas bearing Khasra No. 62 in village Deeli,
Tehsil and District Jammu to the petitioner vide order No.
JDA/DLH/647 dated 11.12.2002. Pursuant to the said order dated
11.12.2002, the petitioner deposited the cost of total land
determined at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per kanal i.e. Rs. 6,65,000/-
before the Authority, which was duly accepted vide receipt dated
11.12.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner remained in continuous
2 OWP No. 744/2006
possession of the allotted land and has also made improvements on
the same.
03. The allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner was
cancelled by the Jammu Development Authority in view of the
decision of the Board of Directors as the plots/commercial sites
were allotted by the then Vice Chairman Shri Mohd. Aslam
Qureshi, without following norms.
04. The contention of the respondents is that the allotment of the land
was made in favour of the petitioner without adopting the
guidelines fixed for such allotment and also without approval of
the competent authority. It is also submitted that vide Government
Order No. 104-HUD of 2003 dated 05.05.2003, all the allotments
made by the then Vice Chairman, were ordered to be kept in
abeyance. Thereafter, all these issues regarding allotment matters
were placed before the Board of Directors of the Authority and
rd
considered in number of Board meetings and in its 63 meeting
held on 19.01.2004, it was decided to cancel all these allotments
and accordingly, in pursuance to the same, vide order dated
21.09.2006, the irregular allotment made in favour of the
petitioner was cancelled.
05. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the above referred
decision taken in different Board meetings, the Jammu
Development Authority issued the order dated 21.09.2006,
whereby, the irregular allotments made in favour of the petitioner
was cancelled. The respondents have admitted the allotment of
land measuring 6 kanals and 13 marlas to the petitioner and also
3 OWP No. 744/2006
deposit of amount of Rs. 6,65,000/-, as determined vide allotment
order dated 11.12.2002, but submit that the order of allotment in
favour of the petitioner was irregular and passed without adopting
the norms, as such, the same was cancelled.
06. The decision regarding cancellation of the allotment of land of the
petitioner is assailed on the ground that the same is arbitrary,
unfair and unjustified. It is submitted that the allotment made in
favour of the petitioner has not been found fault with, on any
ground. The allotment in favour of the petitioner has raised a
legitimate expectation and the same cannot be defeated by
cancelling the same without providing him any opportunity of
being heard. The petitioner, admittedly, was not provided any
opportunity of hearing either by the Board of Directors or by the
Vice-Chairman before cancellation of the allotments. There is also
no justification for cancelling the allotment of the plot of the
petitioner who was already in possession since long without
following due process and giving him any opportunity. There is no
basis for cancellation of allotment of the plot allotted to the
petitioner after more than four years of its allotment, without
following due procedure.
07. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have
cancelled the allotment at his back without providing any
opportunity of hearing. Similar issue has already been considered
by the Division Bench in Jagdish Raj Vs. Jammu Development
“
Authority and others , whereby, this Court has held as under: -
”
4 OWP No. 744/2006
9. It is, therefore, a clear case of violation of Article 14 of the
“
constitution of India because the order dated 12th September,
2015 has been passed at the back of the appellant without
affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard and it attracts
application of para-23 of judgment reported as State of U.P vs.
Sudhir Kumar Singh, AIR 2020 SC 5215, which is reproduced
below;
“23. It may be added that every case in which a
citizen/person knocks at the doors of the writ court for breach
of his or its fundamental rights is a matter which contains a
“public law element”, as opposed to a case which is
concerned only with breach of contract and damages flowing
therefrom. Whenever a plea of breach of natural justice is
made against the State, the said plea, if found sustainable,
sounds in constitutional law as arbitrary State action, which
attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India see Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat (1974)
–
2 SCC 121 at paragraph 7. The present case is, therefore, a
case which involves a “public law element” in that the
petitioner (Respondent No.1 before us) who knocked at the
doors of the writ court alleged breach of the audi alteram
partem rule, as the entire proceedings leading to cancellation
of the tender, together with the cancellation itself, were done
on an ex parte appraisal of the facts behind his back”
08. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The impugned
order of cancellation of allotment of plot is quashed. The
respondents are, however, free to consider the issue of irregular
allotment of plot made and pass appropriate orders in this behalf
as per law, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
09. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE
Jammu
31.01.2024
Vishal
Whether the judgment is reportable ? Yes/No
Whether the judgment is speaking ? Yes/No