Kamlesh Devi vs Jammu Development Authority Jammu

We have heard the learned advocate, Mr. Parag Sharma appearing for the appellant and Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned advocate appearing for

the respondents as well.

Considering the facts of the case: we propose to dispose of this LPA at preliminary stage of admission, Petitioner Appellant approached the

court for issuance of a writ of mandamus in directing to regularise the plot of land located at Jawahar Nagar, New Plot, Jammu, of which she claims to be in possession for the last more than 15 years, as it has already been done in other similar case and further, a writ of certiorari for quashing communication (AnnexureA) and notices (Annexures B & C) and also a direction to the respondents to restrain from demolishing the structure raised on the plot and disturb the possession of the appellant on the said land. The plea of the petitioner appellant, however, did not merit acceptance with the learned single judge and the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 1112000. It is how the petitionerappellant is before us in this appeal to canvass the correctness of the impugned order propounded by the learned single judge.

Facts of the case depicted in nut shell are that the petitioner on the strength of her claim of possession on the plot of land seeks its regularisation

by the respondents in her favour on the analogy of a case similar to one of Smt Beant Kour. Mr. Parag Sharma submitted that the petitionerappellant has been making some payment of land to the respondents during the period she is in possession of the said land and, therefore,

a right is vested in her and has acquired a status of tenant, and she cannot be termed as a trespasser.

The stand taken by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents is that, the appellant is a trespasser and has not acquired any legal

right. Her case is not identical to that of the case of Smt Beant Kour with which the petitionerappellant claims similarity for regularisation of her plot

of land.

Assuming that the petitioner appellant has been paying some amount to the respondents, but that would not bestow upon her the status of

tenant. The' existence of jurality of the relationship between that of landlord and tenant is contemplated by a contract under the requisite statutory provisions and not on the plea that the petitionerappellant had been paying some amount, may be as rent and treated as tenant. In this regard, the decision of the Apex Court in case Dr. H.S. Rikhy and others v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee reported in AIR 1962 SC 554 may be

noticed.

Needless to say, Mr. Parag Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, could not, during the course of debate, show us from the

record as to how the petitionerappellant came in the possession of the land. This manifestly shows that there has been no transfer of interest in the land by delivering its possession to the petitionerappellant, so as to term the payment made to the respondents as rent to establish the relationship

that of landlord and tenant. Further"" plea of the petitionerappellant about her case to be identical to that of Smt. Beant Kour also does not find

merit as petitionerappellant could not substantiate her plea that her case was identical to that of the Beant Kour whose plot has been regularised in her favour by the respondents. Assuming that it has been done and the status of Beant Kour is similar as that of the petitionerappellant and the respondents committed error/wrong in regularisation of her plot, the court would not allow to perpetuate the wrong again by putting its seal. 7.

What is stated and discussed above, we are of the view that the judgement rendered by the learned single judge does not suffer from any infirmity inviting interference by this court. Appeal possesses no merit and is dismissed.