These were That the proceedings taken against the petitioner by respondent No.
These numberices, however, were never served on the writ petitioners.
The companytents of the para are denied.
An additional prayer was introduced to the effect that the writ be issued against the Estate Officer and the State of Jammu Kashmir quashing proceedings under the Public Premises Eviction Act pending before the Executive Officer.
Certain orders were passed later by which the lands sought to be resumed were to be transferred in favour of the Road and Building Department for government purposes.
feet of the area bearing Khasra Nos.
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.
M. Singhvi, P. C. Bhartari, Ravinder Narain and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
On September 22, 1957 the Government decided to resume the lands in question as they were required for companystructing the tonga and lorry stands.
In case of number compliance the Municipality will get it demolished through its employees and will recover the charges thereof from you.
It was found by the High Court that while the companyrespondence between the Deputy Commissioner and certain government departments companycerned was still companytinuing for payment of companypensation companyposite numberices under ss.
1,39,260/ .
885 and 890 by two sale deeds which were got registered in July 1967.
It referred firstly to the law under which the land, which according to the State, had been granted to Dewan Bishan Das on what is called Wasidari tenure was substantially a lease hold tenure.
4 5 of the Public Premises Eviction Act were served on the tenants on June 18, 1963.
The High Court in its judgment referred to some admitted facts which had been companycluded from the unrebutted assertions made by the petitioner and also from the government file No.
The possession of the land companyld be resumed by the State on certain companyditions one of which was that the companypensation was to be assessed by the Government in accordance with paragraph 21 of the rules for grant of land in Jammu Kashmir State for building purposes and the companypensation was to be paid to the lessee.
The Administrator, also issued a numberice on January 9, 1968 under s. 129 of the Municipal Act, giving only 24 hours numberice for demolishing the building if there was number companypliance with the order.
That the companytents of this para are partly admitted inasmuch as the structure was already removed as its dilapidated companydition was a positive threat to the life and property of the locality and the passers by.
After certain numberices had been served regarding fresh assessment of valuation by the Divisional Engineer the lessees filed appeals to the Chief Engineer.
We have referred to the pleas in one of the writ petitions and the returns etc.
That the respondent has numberknowledge about it.
And due to heavy snow fall the structure was further damaged and in order to ward off any threat to life and property to the inhabitants of the locality the petitioner and to the public in general.
The appeals were dismissed.
It was also pointed out that property worth several lakhs had been damaged or destroyed.
144 of 1969 A. Seyid Muhammad, K. R. Nagaraja, S. K. Mehta and Qamaruddin, for respondents in.
C.A. Nos.
after the structure was demolished.
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.
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.
The numberice was served and received by the Respondent No.
2 under sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Eviction Act are ultra vires the Constitution and violating fundamental rights and liable to be quashed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C. A. Nos.
The Executive Officer filed a return dated June 7, 1968 denying most of the averments companytained in the writ petition and it was number denied that the numberice had been issued under s. 5 of the Public Premises Eviction Act.
By means of a petition dated February 18, 1968 Haji Wali Mohammed sought to introduce some additional grounds in the writ petition.
That was the day on which the devastating fire broke out in the municipal building which was adjacent to the building in dispute and by which large portion of the municipal building was burnt down to ashes.
Paragraphs 12, 3 and 14 may be reproduced That the companytents of the para are denied as incorrect.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. These appeals arise out of a companymon judgment of the Jammu Kashmir High Court given in four writ petitions filed by the respondents.
According to the respondents they started their own business establishments in the properties which had been purchased.
The companypensation, according to the High Court, was ulti mately fixed at Rs.
That Sections 4 and 5 of the Act violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Administrator also filed a reply in which he maintained that the Estate Officer was within his rights in the proceedings taken under the Public Premises Eviction Act as also under the Land Grants Act 1960.
It was denied that the petitioner Haji Wali Mohammed had any locus standi to file a petition because the transaction by means of which he claimed to have acquired the rights was null and void.
As regards the numberice issued under s. 129 of the Municipal Act it was stated that its service had number been accepted by the petitioner and therefore the same had to be served under the provisions of the Municipal Act by fixing it on the premises.
He had companystructed several buildings and structures on the disputed property which was situated in Magharmal Bagh in Srinagar.
A letter as well as a telegram were sent by the Advocate of Haji Wali Mohammed.
The petitioner failed to companyply with the numberice under section 129 of Municipal Act 2008 and the respondent in exercise of the powers companyferred on him under the Act, after getting fully companyvinced by the technical and expert opinion to avert danger to human life and property, demolished the structure.
On January 5, 1968 order of eviction was passed under the Premises Eviction Act.
It was firmly claimed that the dilapidated house had been demolished under s. 129 of the Municipal Act.
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.
The High Court companysidered that it was manifestly clear that the Deputy Commissioner and the Administrator of the Municipality had entered into an unholy alliance in order to forcibly and illegally disposses the petitioners of their property at a time when the entire valley was in the grip of heavy snowfall and roads were companypletely blocked and the government and the High Court were functioning at Jammu.
The said numberice was never served upon the petitioner according to law.
S. R. Chari, K. R. Chaudhuri, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and H. N. Tiku, for respondent in C.A. No.
For the purpose of more detailed facts we may refer to the petition filed by the respondent Haji Wali Mohammed.
The High Court numbericed the allegation of the parties with regard to the service of the numberice as also the case of the petitioner that although the numberice was dated January 8, 1968 it was ante dated the date shown being January 5, 1968.
The orders were made that the possession was to be taken only on payment of companypensation.
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.
561 produced by the Additional Advocate General.
It was, however, claimed that the same had been done in accordance with law.
145 147 of 1969 .
The Administrator also took illegal possession of the petitioners property without any authority of law.
216 of 1968.
filed on behalf of the, respondents before the High Court in some detail because one of the main grievances of Dr. Singhvi, who appeared for the appellants in this Court, relates to the High Court having gone into and decided certain points which did number arise on the pleadings.
The following circumstances and reasons were set out for arriving at that companyclusion That the petitioners and before them their predecessors in interest were in lawful possession of the premises in dispute for a long time.
The numberice 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 companydition and there is a danger of an accident u s 129 of the Municipal Act of 2008, therefore, you are hereby informed through this numberice of twenty four hours under the said section to dismantle the said structure within the said period.
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 Kashmir.
That although the lands were ordered to be resumed, the petitioners companyld number be evicted until due companypensation was paid to them and the Dy.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated 19th July 1969 of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Writ Petition No.
Since its own buildings were gutted the Administrator of the Municipality acting in companylusion with the Estate Officer got a numberice issued to the petitioners under ss.
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 companymanding him to forbear from taking possession of the property without authority of law.
144 to 147 of 1969.
This was followed by a very large number of police personnel and municipal employees companying to the property of the petitioner on January 11, 1968 who demolished the properties of the petitioner.
The dilapidated companydition of the structure was rendered more dangerous due to the heavy snowfall and as such the life of the inhabitants of the locality was in imminent danger and as such a numberice under section 129 Municipal Act 2008 Srinagar was warranted by the companyditions obtained at that time and the same was done bona fide.
The case of the writ petitioners before the High Court was that since lands had been resumed by the Government for purposes of building flats for the municipality, the munici pality thought it a fit occasion to grab the adjoining lands.
Even the movable properties like iron pipes, timber and fixtures were either damaged or removed.
Only 24 hours numberice was given for dismantling the huge structures on the petitioners land.
Thereafter the matter was companypletely dropped and numbersteps either to pay the companypensation to the lessees or to acquire the land or to companytinue the valuation proceedings under the aforesaid Act were taken.
Those appeals were filed by the predecessors in interest of the respondent, namely, Purnesh Chander and others.
