STATE OF J&K Vs. JUDGE, SMALL CAUSES COURT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
STATE OF JANDK
Judge, Small Causes Court
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IMPUGNED in this writ petition with prayer for quashment thereof is a judgment purporting to have been passed by Sub -Judge (Court of Small
Causes) in Civil Suit No. 7 of 1985 on 11. 8. 1994 whereunder while
accepting second respondents plaint in exparte the court declared him to
be the owner in possession of land measuring 1 kanal, 15 marlas and 165
Sq.ft situated in Brarinambal, Khonakhan, Srinagar, under survey Nos:
1599, 1600, 1601, 1704/1658/1607, 1659/1607, 1660/1607, 1661/1607 and held the proceedings purporting to have been initiated by Estates
Department to evict the respondent therefrom under the J&K Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, (hereinafter to be
referred to a "the Act"), to be illegal and thereby not binding.
(2.) GROUNDS pleaded are that the land in question was purely state land belonging to different government departments but wrongly encroached
upon by respondent No.2 which necessitated initiation of eviction
proceedings by Dy. Director Estates, under the Act which were sought to
be set at naught by said respondent by instituting the civil suit before
the respondent No.1 who as already said, decreed the same in exparte in
violation of law as the suit even though not maintainable was decreed in
absence of present petitioners of which they had no knowledge whatsoever
and could as such not file an appeal in time and had to invoke extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction. Materials appended with the memo of petition
are the extracts of revenue record and photo copies of certain official
communications as also the copies of the plaint and the statements etc.
recorded by the trial court alongwith certified copy of the impugned
decree and judgment.
(3.) IN his counter affidavit respondent No.2 has among other things pleaded that the writ petition is not maintainable as being directed
against the decree of the civil Court and also that his continued
possession has matured in ownership rights which stand declared by the
court below. Nobody has however appeared for the respondents to address
the court and accordingly the matter is taken up for orders.
I have gone through the records and considered the matter. Record of the proceedings reveals that writ petition has been admitted to
hearing as far back as on 14.8.2001 whereafter no substantial proceedings
have taken place for one reason or the other till ultimately it got
dismissed for want of prosecution on 16. 02. 2005, but was later restored
on 27. 9. 2005. Perusal of material appended with the ex facie suggests
state ownership of the suit land. As per revenue extracts it is recorded
in possession of different departments of the Government while respondent
No.2 has been in unauthorized occupation thereof. Undoubtedly the matter
has not been effectively conducted by the petitioner in trial court which
resulted in the impugned exparte decree. That it has been so, speaks
volumes about the conduct of concerned Government Advocates entrusted
with the case at relevant point of time. To say the least, they have been
extremely careless about the interests of Government and just for want of
effective prosecution have contributed in substantial loss to the
Government by share default, may be willful.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.