Grover, J. - (1.) These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court given in four writ petitions filed by the respondents.
(2.) The respondents are stated to be purchasers of certain premises which were originally owned by Dewan Bishan Das who was a former Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He had constructed several buildings and structures on the disputed property which was situated in Magharmal Bagh in Srinagar. The respondents Haji Abdul Aziz Shah and his wife, Abdul Salem Shah and Haji Mohammed Ramzan Shah purchased rights in 8 Kanals, 9 Marlas and 10,000 sq. feet of the area bearing khasra Nos. 885 and 890 by two sale deeds which were got registered in July 1967. Respondent Haji Wali Mohammed purchased rights in the land measuring 25,704 sq. feet along with buildings and garages situated in Sarai Pain near the Exhibition Grounds. According to the respondents they started their own business establishments in the properties which had been purchased. It may be mentioned that the properties had been sold by Purmesh Chander and others who were heirs of Dewan Bishan Das to the respondents. For the purpose of more detailed facts we may refer to the petition filed by the respondent Haji Wali Mohammed. It was alleged therein that in the month of December 1967 municipal buildings in Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar caught fire. The Municipality cleared the debris and took possession of the lands which became vacant as a result of the buildings having been destroyed by the fire. It was alleged that the Deputy Commissioner who was also the Estate Officer purported to issue certain notices in terms of the provisions of the Land Grants Act 1960 and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1959. These notices, however, were never served on the writ petitioners. Para 9 of the petition was as follows: "That petitioner is not liable to any proceedings under any provision of the aforementioned laws. That matter being, however, before the Estate Officer will be dealt with in terms of law". It was further alleged that on January 9, 1968 the Administrator of the Srinagar Municipality got a notice affixed near the petitioner's, property. This notice purported to have been issued in terms of S. 129 of the Municipal Act of Samvat 2008. The said notice was never served upon the petitioner according to law. Only 24 hours' notice was given for dismantling the huge structures on the petitioner's land. This was followed by a very large number of police personnel and municipal employees coming to the property of the petitioner on January 11, 1968 who demolished the properties of the petitioner. Even the movable properties like iron pipes, timber and fixtures were either damaged or removed. The Administrator also took illegal possession of the petitioner's property without any authority of law. It was prayed that a writ or direction be issued to the Administrator of the Municipality prohibiting him from interfering with the physical possession of the petitioner and commanding him to forbear from taking possession of the property without authority of law. The notice issued under the signature of the Administrator of the Municipality which was annexure B to the petition was as follows: "Whereas your one storeyed garage without a roof situate at Bagh Magharmal is in a dilapidated condition and there is a danger of an accident u/s 129 of the Municipal Act of 2008, therefore, you are hereby informed through this notice of twenty four hours under the said section to dismantle the said structure within the said period. In case of non-compliance the Municipality will get it demolished through its employees and will recover the charges thereof from you." A letter as well as a telegram were sent by the Advocate of Haji Wali Mohammed on 10th and 12th January 1968 respectively to the Administrator calling upon him, inter alia to stop all illegal action of demolition of the building as also the structures on the property of Haji Wali Mohammed. It was also pointed out that property worth several lakhs had been damaged or destroyed.
(3.) By means of a petition dated February 18, 1968 Haji Wali Mohammed sought to introduce some additional grounds in the writ petition. These were: (a) "That the proceedings taken against the petitioner by respondent No. 2 under Sections 4 and 5 of Public Premises Eviction Act are ultra vires the Constitution and violating fundamental rights and liable to be quashed. (b) That Sections 4 and 5 of the Act violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India." An additional prayer was introduced to the effect that the writ be issued against the Estate Officer and the State of Jammu and Kashmir quashing proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction Act pending before the Executive Officer.;