Jammu, July 15: In WP(C) No. 2121/2026 CM No. 4576/2026 CAV No. 1955/2026 after hearing HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE ORDERED as under:-
CAV No. 1955/2026: With the appearance of Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate, who is on caveat, the caveat stands discharged.
WP(C) No. 2121/2026:
01. Through the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notice dated 07.07.2026 issued by the Estate Officer, Jammu Development Authority, purportedly in exercise of powers conferred under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to remove their property from the premises within a period of seven days, failing which the same shall be liable to be removed and disposed of by way of public auction.
The aforesaid notice has been impugned in the present petition. 02. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the impugned notice, though purportedly issued under Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1988 does not meet the requirements contemplated under the said Act.
It is submitted that the property in question, does not fall within the definition of public premises, as the construction has been raised by the petitioners on their proprietary land pursuant to a valid building permission granted by the competent authority.
According to the petitioners, neither the land belongs to the State/Jammu Development Authority nor any unauthorized construction has been raised so as to justify initiation of proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
03. With a view to fortify his claim, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to Section 4 and 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1988, which respectively deals with the issuance of show cause notice against an order of eviction and the power to remove unauthorized constructions.
For facility of reference, the relevant provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:-
4. Issue of notice to show cause against the order of eviction. 1) If the estate officer is of the opinion that any person is in unauthorized occupation of any public premises and that he should be evicted, the state officer shall issue in the manner hereinafter provided a notice in writing calling upon such person concerned to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made.
2) The notice shall – a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is proposed to be made; and b) require all persons concerned, that is to say all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of or claim interest in, the public premises,- i. to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof, and ii. to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.
3) The estate officer shall cause the notice to be served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the public premises, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be deemed to have been duly given to all persons concerned.
4) Where the estate officer knows or has reasons to believe that any persons are in occupation of the public premises, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3) he shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or in such other manner as may be prescribed.
6. Power to remove unauthorized construction, etc.
1) No person shall – a) erect or place or raise any building or any movable or immovable structure or fixture, b) display or spread any goods, c) bring or keep any cattle or other animal, on, or against, or in front of, any public premises except in accordance with the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy such premises.
2) Where any building or other immovable structure or fixture has been erected, placed or raised on any public premises in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), the estate officer may serve upon the person erecting such building or structure or fixture, a notice requiring him either to remove, or to show cause why he shall not remove such building or other structure or fixture from the public premises within such period, not being less than five days as he may specify in the notice; and on the omission or refusal of such person either to show cause or to remove such building or other structure or fixture from the public premises, or where the cause shown is not, in the opinion of the estate officer, sufficient, the estate officer may by order, remove or cause to be removed the building or other structure or fixture from the public premises and recover the cost of such removal from the person aforesaid as an arrear of land revenue.
3) Where any movable structure or fixture has been erected, placed or raised, or any goods have been displayed or spread, or any cattle or other animal has been brought or kept, on any public premises, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) by any person, the estate officer may, by order, remove or cause to be removed without notice, such structure, fixture, goods, cattle or other animal, as the case may be, from the public premises and recover the cost of such removal from such persons as an arrear of land revenue.
04. A plain reading of Section 4 makes it manifest that the Estate Officer can initiate proceedings only where he forms an opinion that a person is in unauthorized occupation of a public premise and is liable to be evicted. In such an eventuality, a notice specifying the grounds of proposed eviction is required to be issued. Likewise, Section 6(2) empowers the Estate Officer to issue notice only where any building or immovable property has been erected on public premises in contravention of Section 6(1), requiring the person concerned either to remove the structure or to show cause why it should not be removed within the period prescribed therein.
05. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 purchased land measuring 04 kanals, comprising 03 kanals under Khasra No. 764 and 01 kanal under Khasra No. 771 min, falling under Khata No. 261 and Khewat No. 33, situated at village Deeli, Jammu, from the erstwhile owners by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 22.12.1997, whereafter mutation came to be attested in his favour.
A copy of the registered Sale Deed along with mutation has been placed on record.
06. It has further been pleaded that petitioner No. 2 also purchased adjoining land measuring 02 kanals falling under Khasra No. 764 min, Khata No. 261 min and Khewat No. 33 min, situated at Village Deeli, Jammu, by way of a registered Sale Deed dated 23.12.1997, whereafter Mutation No. 1302/Jeem was attested in his favour.
Copies of the Sale Deed and mutation have also been placed on record.
07. .....It is submitted that after purchasing the aforesaid land, which, according to the petitioners, does not form part of Khasra No. 781, the petitioners raised construction only after obtaining a valid building permission from the Jammu Municipal Corporation vide Order No. 706/BS/10 dated 07.08.2010, and the construction has been raised strictly in accordance with the sanctioned building plan.
08. Thus, in the aforesaid backdrop, learned Senior counsel further submits that the respondents-JDA while issuing impugned notice, have observed that the petitioners failed to produce any valid documentary evidence regarding their claim over JDA land falling under Khasra No. 781, Village Deeli, Tehsil Jammu South, on that basis proceeded to issue the impugned notice.
However, on a specific query put by the Court, learned Senior counsel submitted that the petitioners do not claim any right, title or interest over Khasra No. 781, and their claim is confined only to Khasra Nos. 764 and 771 min, which constitute their proprietary land. It is, therefore, contended that the reliance placed by the respondents upon Khasra No. 781 is wholly misconceived and that the impugned action is liable to be interfered with to the extent it concerns the petitioners’ land.
09. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for the caveator/respondents submitted that the stand of the Jammu Development Authority is reflected in para 5 of the impugned notice, wherein it has been specifically recorded that the land in question falls under Khasra No. 781, village Deeli, Tehsil Jammu South as per the demarcation report submitted vide No. DMJ/LO/21-22/1797 dated 28.07.2021 in accordance with order passed by this Court in PIL No. 19/2011 titled S.K. Bhalla Vs. State through GAD & Ors., which stands verified as per the DGPS of the said Khasra number.
10. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record. Also heard learned Senior counsel for the caveator.
11. Prima facie, a case for indulgence is made out.
12. Issue notice, which is waived by Ms. Monika Thakur, Advocate appearing vice Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned GA on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Let the response be filed by the respondents within a period of two weeks positively.
13. List on 03.08.2026.
14. In the meantime, subject to objections from other side and till next date of hearing before the Bench, operation of the impugned notice dated 07.07.2026, bearing No. JDA/Teh-D/EO/351-357, shall remain stayed.
15. Alteration/Modification/Vacation on Motion.
16. It is, however, clarified that the interim stay granted herein shall not come in the way of respondents-Jammu Development Authority from taking action, in accordance with law, against any unauthorized occupant or encroacher, including the petitioners, if it is established that they have encroached upon Khasra No. 781, village Deeli, Tehsil Jammu South, Jammu, which, according to the respondents, forms part of the land belonging to the Jammu Development Authority.
|