AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnesh Oswal, J
1) The respondent No. 5 herein, had filed a petition before the respondent No. 3 for declaring the superdari made in the name of deceased-Suram Singh as infructuous in respect of the land under khasra Nos. 201(01 kanal 19 Marlas), 202 (14 marlas), 203 (15 marlas), 204 (01 kanal 04 marlas), 205 (2 Kanals) together with survey Nos. 14 (2 kanal-17 marlas), 24(1 kanal-16 marlas) 24 min (1 kanal 16 marlas), 24 min(1 kanal 15 marlas) 197 (2 kanal 10 marlas), 200 (9 marlas) situated at Chak Umrah, Tehsil Bishnah, District Jammu and declaring the contesting respondents i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 7, 8, 11 and 12 herein, not entitled to possession of the same.
2) While the petition was pending before the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 03.02.2010 by taking note of the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No. 5 that the property kept on the superdari by the department has been misappropriated by the Superdar, the department was directed to resume its possession. The petitioners assailed the order dated 03.02.2010 by way of an appeal before the respondent No. 2 and the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 25.02.2011 being premature, with the observation that order dated 03.02.2010 shall await till the Custodian resume the hearing of the main case, as order dated 03.02.2010 was not executed and the main petition was also not disposed of by the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred a revision petition against orders dated 03.02.2010 and 25.02.2011 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 & 2 respectively before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu-respondent No. 1, which too was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 24.06.2015, with the observation that the final order has not been passed by the respondent No. 3.
3) Through the medium of the present petition, the petitioners have impugned orders dated 03.02.2010, 25.02.2011 and 24.06.2015 passed by the respondent Nos. 3, 2 and 1 respectively on the ground that the order dated 03.02.2010 was passed by the respondent No. 3 without affording the opportunity of being heard, more particularly when no such date was fixed by the respondent No. 3 and case was rather adjourned for 18.02.2010 on the earlier date, which was fixed on 01.02.2010. Besides, the petitioners have also raised various aspects of the case in respect of the merits of the claim of the contesting parties, those may not be relevant for the purpose of consideration of the present controversy.
4) The respondents 2 & 3 have filed the response, thereby denying the contentions raised by the petitioners.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record produced by the respondent No. 3.
6) A perusal of the record reveals that the petition was filed by the respondent No. 5 on 15.06.2009 and notice was issued to the respondents therein and the parties were directed to maintain status quo on spot. The record further reveals that the matter was taken up on the various dates of hearings and on 01.02.2010, it was adjourned for 18.02.2010. On 18.02.2010, the matter was posted for 19.03.2010. The record further depicts that no date for hearing was fixed for 03.02.2010 but the respondent No. 3 has observed in the order dated 03.02.2010 that the case came up for hearing today. It is not understandable that as to how the case was listed on 03.02.2010 when the matter was already posted for 18.02.2010.
7) There is substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter was taken up without notice to the petitioners, though in the order impugned dated 03.02.2010, it has been mentioned that the counsel for the petitioners was present. Normally, this Court would have directed the petitioners to approach the respondent No. 3 for bringing to its notice that presence of the counsel for the petitioners has been wrongly recorded in the order dated 03.02.2010 but taking into consideration that the case was never listed on 03.02.2010 before the respondent No. 3 as is evident from the minutes of the proceedings, this Court deems it proper to consider the grievance of the petitioner and decide the contention raised by the petitioners.
8) This Court has no hesitation to held that order dated 03.02.2010 has been passed by the respondent No. 3 in utter disregard of the principle of natural justice as the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners. The manner in which the case was taken up by the respondent No. 3 on a date when the same was never fixed, cannot be countenanced. Such an act on the part of judicial/quasi-judicial authorities lead to decline of faith of public in such authorities, thereby affording an opportunity to a litigant to level allegations against the authorities.
9) The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have miserably failed to take note of the illegality committed by the respondent No. 3 and have virtually condoned the act of the respondent No. 3 by dismissing the appeal and revision, as the case may be, preferred by the petitioners.
10) A perusal of the record reveals that the main petition filed by the respondent No. 5 has not been decided and the order for resumption of possession passed by the respondent No. 3 has not been executed.
11) In view of the above, order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the respondent No. 3 is quashed and the respondent No. 3 is directed to dispose of the petition filed by respondent No. 5 in accordance with law after affording proper hearing to the contesting parties and till the petition is finally considered and decided by the respondent No. 3, the parties are directed to maintain status quo on spot.