NOORA BEGUM Vs. TEHSILDAR BANDIPORA DIST BARAMULLA
LAWS(J&K)-1999-12-7
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 01,1999

NOORA BEGUM Appellant
VERSUS
TEHSILDAR, BANDIPORA DIST. BARAMULLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner alleges that she is in possession of 1 Kanal and 13 marlas of land under Khasra No. 654, allotted to her decades back by the State Government. Respondent No. 5 taking advantage of her being widow with minor children encroached over on a portion of this land to put in place a cow-shed. Petitioner took up the matter with Tehsildar Bandipora, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sopare and Additional Commissioner, Srinagar-Kmr. As nothing concrete emerged she approached Divisional Commissioner respondent No. 4. The Divisional Commissioner through Additional Commissioner, Kashmir asked Tehsildar to take steps in the matter and for the purpose letter dated 23-8-1999 (Annexure PD) was addressed to Tehsildar Bandipora. As Tehsildar has not taken any steps petitioner has come in writ seeking mandamus to Tehsildar for removal of the encroachment pursuant to orders of his higher ups.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner conceeds that petitioner has alternative remedy available to seek redressal of her grievances but submits that the writ was filed as it was speedy remedy in the matter. Perusal of the record shows petitioner is recorded in possession of the land in Shajra Khasra Annexure D, but the orders of allotment, nature and kind of occupation and continuation and the period for which petitioner has continued in possession are matters not coming forth from record. There is no material on record to show the status and the nature of occupation of parcel of land by respondent No. 5, out of the total land claimed by the petitioner, alloted to her. The extent of land encroached upon as also the period of occupation by respondent No. 5 is not clear from the annexure placed along with. All these matters can be examined on evidence in an enquiry. Petitioner as conceds by her counsel has effective alternative remedy available under domestic laws where all aspects of the matter can be equitably, fairly and effectively taken care of.
(3.) From Annexures A, B, and C placed in support of the petition in the context of allegations in the writ petition, an impression is given that the Tehsildar Bandipora (respondent No.5) is laging behind and unduely delaying follow up action of the orders of his highups, respondents 2 to 4. This aspect of the matter can be better taken care of by pursing the matter at the appropriate level in the administrative echolons of the revenue department, whether the orders forming annexures are administrative or otherwise in nature, is again a matter for the Executive and not the writ Court.;


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