Decided on February 08,1993

HARI RAM Appellant


V.K. Gupta, J. - (1.)Initially the notice of show cause was issued to respondents to show-cause as to why the petition be not admitted to hearing. Because the respondents did not appear despite service, vide order dated 1st Dec. 1992, the petition was admitted to hearing and afresh notices were directed to be issued to the respondents. As per office noting, both the respondents have been served, but despite repeated calls, no one has appeared for them.
(2.)The short point involved in this petition is about the grievance of the petitioner in not having been appointed as a Chowkidar despite cleared and categorical promises made to him by the respondents in lieu of the respondents having taken over land of the petitioner measuring one kanal and seven marlas comprising in Khasra No. 457-min in village Parshola, Tehsil Doda Distt. Doda, The petitioner's case is that respondents wanted to construct a water reservoir in the village because no one was coming forward to offer his land for this public purpose, the petitioner was ready and willing to offer his land to the respondents on the condition of his being absorbed as a Chowkidar in govt. service and appointed to look after the reservoir itself. The petitioner's submission is that the respondents agreed to his condition, took over the land from him and constructed a water reservoir thereon, while the respondents took over the land from the petitioner, they extended unconditional and unequivocal promises and assurances to him that in lieu of the land, he shall be appointed as a Chowkidar. The petitioner's grievance is that respondents have backed out from their promises and assurances and have not fulfilled the same, thus causing injustice to him, compelling him to approach this Court for the grant of aforesaid relief.
(3.)The conduct of the respondents in not appearing in this court, firstly, after issuance of show-cause notice and secondly, after the service of notice upon admission clearly shows that they are not interested in contesting this petition and the relief claimed by the petitioner. The non-appearance of the respondents also leave me in no doubt that the facts alleged by the petitioner, especially with regard to the acquisition of his land by the respondents and the promises of job in lieu thereof are wholly true and correct. Had it been otherwise, the respondents should have come forward to controvert these facts.

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