AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) A mosque was in the process of being constructed by the so-called inhabitants of Wanpora Qazigund, purportedly on the State land which was
resisted by the revenue agencies and other State authorities. The petitioner herein preferred writ petition bearing WP(C) No.3622/2019, in which it
was urged by him that he was prepared to offer his proprietary land in exchange of the State land on which the mosque is stated to be built. The
permission with regard to exchange of land was to be granted by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 133 of the Land Revenue Act, 1996. This
petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2019 with a direction to Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, to take an appropriate decision in
regard to the request of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of Land Revenue Act and the rules framed there-under. It was also
made clear that none of the rights of the petitioner had been determined and the disposal of the petition would not be construed as a Mandamus to
allow the request of the petitioner
2) The issue then has been considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, by virtue of his order dated 13.02.2020, which is impugned in the
present petition. The request of the petitioner for exchange of land has been rejected on the following grounds:
a. Difference in value of the land offered and the land encroached.
b. The disguise adopted in the name of building a mosque, while illegally constructing a shopping complex on the highway, which goes against the
developmental norms.
c. The objection of the local Auqaf Committee and the locals distancing from any such demand for a mosque at the spot.
d. To serve as a deterrent for encroachers who resort to such requests once the revenue authorities go tough on them.
3) While issuing the impugned order, reliance is also placed upon Government Order No.1022-Home of 2010 dated 16.08.2010, relating to the
encroachments on public places for religious structures which are banned with effect from 29.09.2009.
4) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the material on record. In my opinion, the order impugned is a speaking order
and gives sufficient reasons for rejection of the request made by the petitioner. From the perusal of the order impugned, it can safely be concluded
that the main purpose of offering the land in exchange by the petitioner was with a view to enable him to construct a shopping complex on the
National Highway. This appears to have been opposed even by the local Auqaf Committee who have distanced themselves from any such demand for
a mosque at the spot in question.
5) In my opinion, the State is not obliged to acceded to every request made for an exchange in terms of Section 133(d) of the Land Revenue Act,
1996. The order impugned, in my opinion, does not suffer from any illegality. The petition is, thus, found to be without any merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed along with connected CM.