Jammu, Feb 19: Civil Judge Senior Division Kishtwar, Mahmud Anwar Alnasir has restrained Commissioner Secretary, J&K PW(R&B) Department and six others defendants, including DC Kishtwar and ADC Collector Land Acquisition Kishtwar, through temporary injunction, from going ahead with any kind of construction or activity in a suit property in Moza Loundri of tehsil Drabshalla, without following due process of law.
The Civil Judge has ordered the defendants to follow due process of law as envisaged in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.
This order is, however, subject to objection till the next date of hearing i.e., February 28, 2025.
The court directive has come in an application for ad-interim relief and civil original suit for permanent prohibitory injunction – restraining the defendants, their agents, employees or representatives from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their land at Moza Loundri of tehsil Drabshalla and constructing link road Tatani-Sharoti road across it, forcibly without adopting acquisition proceeding and without payment of compensation.
The applicant siblings viz., Mohan Lal and Bal Krishan, sons of Sant Ram, resident of Charyana Saroor tehsil Drabshalla, district Kishtwar, through their counsel, had also sought the consequential relief of staying the operation of letter No DCK/PS/24/F no 17/2419-22 dated February 18, 2025.
While restraining the defendants (non-applicants) through temporary injunction from going ahead with construction or any other activity in the suit property, the Civil Judge M A Alnasir observed, “The requisition of police force, as per the copy of communication dated February 18, 2025 issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Collector Land Acquisition Kishtwar, speaks about the intention of the respondents to go ahead full-throttle without following due process of law.”
“Such behaviour, on the part of respondents, smacks of the abuse of power vested in them (respondents), who by virtue of their feudal mindsets are behaving like imperialistic occupational force, occupying a slave territory. Such attitude cannot be tolerated in a democratic system where the respondents herein ought to be reminded that they have been empowered to serve the public and the citizens and that is how they have been defined as public or Government servants who have to act for the welfare of citizens as well as the society,” the Civil Judge held.
“Their every action has to comply with the law as laid down by the legislature and any deviation therefrom would lead to anarchy, which cannot be permitted by a court of law. As such at this stage the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicants,” the court observed.
With this observation, the Civil Judge ordered, “As such the applicants are likely to incur irreparable loss which cannot be later on compensated by any means. Therefore, in order to…. prevent the suit property from getting wasted away, at this state the non-applicants are restrained by virtue of temporary injunction, not to go-ahead with any kind of construction or activity in the suit property without following due process of law as envisaged in RFCTLARR Act, 2013.”
Earlier the court also noted that the revenue extract annexed with the plaint “nowhere reflected the suit property to be state land where the respondents could have a free hand to execute works nor it is a case of encroachment or illegal occupation of state land where the land owners needed to vacate their own property.”
“As such the counsel for the applicant has carved out a prima facie case for himself which needs to be tried on the basis of evidence… during the course of trial. So far as the balance of convenience is concerned the applicants’ counsel has stated that the non-applicants are bent upon occupying the private land of the petitioners, without any authority of law and without following due process of law as mandated under RFCTLARR Act 2013,” Civil Judge M A Alnasir remarked.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE
Earlier, while mentioning the brief facts of the case, the Civil Judge stated that the plaintiffs are owner in possession of land bearing Khasra Nos 111, 113, 115,143,144,483/11 situated at Moza Loundri of tehsil Drabshalla (UT of J&K) to the extent of their share and the same is recorded in the name of plaintiffs in revenue records.
However, the defendants, comprising Commissioner Secretary, J&K PW(R&B) Department; Chief Engineer (CE), PW(R&B) Department, Jammu; Superintending Engineer (SE), PW(R&B) Circle Doda; Executive Engineer PW(R&B) division Kishtwar; Deputy Commissioner (DC) Kishtwar; Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) Collector Land Acquisition Kishtwar and Tehsildar Drabshalla, in haphazard manner and without adopting the procedure laid down in RFCTLARR ACT, 2013 started construction of road across the land of the plaintiffs.
The land of plaintiffs was neither notified for construction of Tatani-Shiroti link road nor any notice to this effect served to the plaintiffs under RFCTLARR, Act 2013.
“ADC Collector Land Acquisition, at the behest of Executive Engineer PW(R&B) Division Kishtwar, in sheer abuse of his powers, issued letter to SSP Kishtwar for deploying protection for forcible construction of link road without acquisition, by using muscle power and without completing the acquisition process under RFCTLARR Act, 2013,” the court order mentioned.
The plaintiffs, as per court order, served legal notice to the defendants, under registered cover but the defendants even not bothered to reply to the notice.
“The cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs on February 3, 2025 when the plaintiffs were put under illegal detention at Tehsil Office Drabshalla, and at their back the defendants deployed man and machinery on spot to construct the road illegally across the land (of plaintiffs). But due to strong resentment and retaliation of family members of plaintiffs, they could not succeed,” it was pointed out.
The Civil Judge, in his order, noted that from the material available on record i.e., copy of notice and postal receipts, it appeared that plaintiffs had made out a prima-facie case in their favour.
“An application for dispensation of prior notice already stands served and the postal receipts bearing dated February 10, 2025 have been sent to respondents, who rather than redressing the grievance of the petitioners, have issued order dated February 18, 2025 addressed to SSP Kishtwar wherein police force have been requisitioned on February 20, 2025 for link road construction,” the court observed.
“In view of the fact that the notices having been served and the office of the DC i.e., DC Kishtwar and ADC Collector Land Acquisition, Kishtwar, having requisitioned police force, it’s quite clear that the respondents are likely to go ahead for construction of road by using force but at the same time not acquiring the private properties, falling in the way of construction of such roads in terms of RFCTLARR Act, 2013,” the Civil Judge remarked.
The court held, “This depicts the intentions of the respondents and defeats the very purpose of prior notice, as such the requirements of prior notice in terms of 80 CPC read with notice in terms of order 39 rule 3 CPC are hereby dispensed with.”
