STATE OF J AND K Vs. GOPI NATH WALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above said letters patent appeals involve common questions of law and facts, which are disposed of by Mr. Justice I. K. Kotwal, the learned single Judge of this court in writ petition No. 135 of 1974 (Pt. Gopi Nath Wali v. Revenue Commissioner (Divisional Commissioner) and others and writ petition No. 146 of 1974 (Amarjeet Singh Johar and others v. Revenue Commissioner (Divisional Commissioner) Jammu and others) by orders passed respectively on April 29, 1980 and April 24, 1980, by which both the petitions are allowed and the orders impugned in both the above petitions passed on Aug. 23, 1974 and Nov. 8, 1973 respectively by Divisional Commissioner, Jammu and Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Jammu are quashed by a writ of certiorari. Thus both the letters patent appeals mentioned above are heard together and are hereby disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are; that some 242 families of displaced persons set up their camp at Gujral Tehsil Jammu and occupied the land belonging to private individuals including the present petitioner/appellant. The displaced persons occupied the said land for residential purposes. In order to regularise their possession over the said land the State authorities took necessary steps under the Jammu and Kashmir Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1956 (Act No. XXIV of 1956) (hereinafter called the Act) which included the extension of village Abadi of Gujral Tehsil Jammu under S.7 of the Act. Notification No. 223-57 LA dated June 23, 1969 was issued in this regard. The compensation for the land brought under Basti in village Gujral Tehsil Jammu was fixed by the then Deputy Commissioner (Collector) at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per Kanal for paying to the private individuals whose land was acquired. After determination of the said compensation, information was sent to provisional Rehabilitation Officer for payment of compensation, who in his turn wrote a letter to the Secretary to Government, Relief and Rehabilitation Department, to arrange for the funds amounting to Rs. 17, 92, 000/- to be paid for the total land assigned, including the land belonging to the petitioners also. Later on a query was made vide letter dt. June 12, 1973 as to whether the rate fixed for payment of compensation was in accordance with the mode laid down in Section 8 of the Act to which a reply was also sent by the letter dt. June 21, 1973 that it was exactly so.

(3.) In partial compliance of the determined compensation as stated above, some payment was made by the Provincial Rehabilitation Officer (in short hereinafter referred as PRO) on Mar. 20, 1973 on behalf of the State Government to the petitioners. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Collector) thereafter sought permission of the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, in terms of sub-sec.(4) of S.15 of the Act to review the earlier decision fixing the rate of compensation at Rs. 15,000/- per kanal as according to him the said determination of compensation was not done in accordance with the mode provided in S.8 of the Act, but the same was fixed according to the provisions of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Permission sought for the review was granted by the Divisional Commissioner. On receipt of the permission, the notices were issued to the present appellant to appear before him. The petitioners on appearance, put up their objections and apart from other grounds also attacked the jurisdiction of the Dy. Commissioner (Collector) to review his earlier order. After hearing the petitioner and taking some evidence the Dy. Commissioner (Collector) revised the previous order and determined the annual income of one kanal of land acquired as not exceeding Rs. 300/-, he, therefore, by his order dt. Nov. 8, 1973 reduced the compensation, which was earlier fixed at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per Kanal. On appeal by the petitioners against the said order of Dy. Commissioner (Collector) to the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, the learned Divisional Commissioner vide his order dt. Aug. 23,1974 dismissed both the appeals, thereby giving rise to the filing of the writ petitions challenging the abovesaid two orders before the learned single Judge, which were respectively registered as writ petition No. 135 of 1974 and writ petition No. 146 of 1974.