ALTAF AHMAD BHAT Vs. VICE CHAIRMAN SDA
LAWS(J&K)-2020-2-98
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (FROM: SRINAGAR)
Decided on February 03,2020

Altaf Ahmad Bhat Appellant
VERSUS
Vice Chairman Sda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By this Civil Revision, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 19.03.2020 (for short "impugned order"), passed by learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar (for brevity "Appellate Court"), on an Appeal titled Vice Chairman Srinagar Development Authority Sgr and ors v. Altaf Ahmad Bhat, by virtue of which the appellate court while allowing the condonation of delay application as also the Appeal, has set-aside the orders dated 09.07.2019 and 02.12.2019 of the court of Sub Judge, Passenger Tax, Srinagar (for short "Trial court"), with a direction to proceed with the suit in accordance with law, on the grounds detailed out in the civil revision. The petitioner has further prayed that the appeal, which had been disposed of by the impugned order, in acceptance of this revision, be transferred to any other court of competent jurisdiction. The Challenge has been made precisely on the following grounds:
a) That the objections filed by the petitioner in opposition to the limitation petition has not been considered in its right perspective;

b) That the order impugned order is contrary to facts and law;

c) That the Appellate Court has erred in law in deciding the appeal along with limitation petition without considering the objections of the petitioner.

d) That the Appellate Court has wrongly condoned the delay as no sufficient cause was shown by the appellants/ respondents herein to seek such condonation.

e) That the impugned order is in disregard of the orders passed by this Court as also to the objections filed by the petitioner in opposition to the limitation petition.

f) That the impugned order is mechanical and has been passed in total disregard to the applicable law.

g) That by the impugned order the final relief has been granted in favour of the appellants/ respondents and there is nothing left in the suit for adjudication.

h) That the respondents had the remedy of revision and not the appeal as chosen by them and wrongly entertained by the Appellate Court.

(2.)Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he submitted an application to the respondents for allotting him a vacant space at Bemina Main Market. The said space is stated to have been identified by the petitioner only, therefore, its allotment was sought by him on humanitarian grounds to enable him to start his business at such vacant space.
(3.)The respondents entertained and processed the application and while the application of the petitioner was pending the petitioner reliably learnt that the respondents intend to allot the said vacant piece of land to some of their favorite, constraining the petitioner to file a civil suit which was transferred by the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, to the court of 2nd Subordinate Judge Civil (PT&E) Srinagar, hereinafter for short as trial court. The petitioner had prayed for the following reliefs in the civil suit:
"1. A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants permanently from issuing any sort of allotment in favour of any of the person except plaintiff.

2. A decree of mandatory injunction commanding the defendants to complete further formalities, if any, for the purpose of allotment of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff.

3. Any other order or decree which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. "

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.