Mohd. Ramzan Bhat vs State and Others

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.—Petitioner has questioned order dated 23.6.2011 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar-respondent No. 3

on the grounds taken in the writ petition.

Private respondents have filed the reply. It is averred that though they had filed a caveat before the Registry but despite of that interim direction

came to be granted on 02.08.2011, constrained them to question the same by the medium of Letters Patent Appeal, was disposed of with a

direction to the Registry to list the writ petition along with CMP No. 1506/2011 on 17.8.2011 at top of the list and learned counsel for private

respondents had stated at bar that he would not seek any adjournment.

Mr. Qayoom argued that the interim order came to be passed in terms of the judgment passed by this court in OWP No. 52/2011 read with

LPA No. 59 /2011, thus the writ petitioner is precluded from questioning the impugned order. It is averred in the reply that OWP No. 597/2010

was filed by three persons namely Gh. Qadir Sheikh, Abdul Gani Malik and Ab. Gaffar Lone and a direction was sought to command official

respondents-revenue agency to ensure strict action and compliance in terms of mandate of section 133-A of J&K Land Revenue Act, 1996 (for

short Act). Interim direction was granted vide order dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure R2 to the reply). Thereafter petitioners in the said writ petition

sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to petitioner No. 3 to file fresh one. Accordingly writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn

unconditionally vide order dated 21.12.2010 so far as it related to petitioners 1 & 2 and with liberty to petitioner No. 3 (annexure R3).

Accordingly, petitioner No. 3 Ab. Gaffar Lone along with two other persons, namely, Mohd. Ramzan Bhat (petitioner in the present petition) and

Gh. Mohd. Bhat filed another petition bearing OWP No. 52/2011 almost for the same relief which he and other writ petitioners have sought in

OWP No. 597/2004, came to be disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2011 (annexure R5) by directing the official respondents to look into the

matter, was subject matter of LPA 59/2011 filed by private respondents, came to be disposed of vide order dated 15.3.2011 (annexure R6). In

terms of the orders passed by the writ court and Division Bench (supra), Deputy Commissioner, Srinagar visited the spot and conducted inquiry in

presence of all interested parties and passed the order dated 23.6.2011 (annexure R7), impugned herein. Ab. Gaffar Lone, Mohd. Ramzan Bhat

and Gh. Mohd. Bhat filed another writ petition bearing OWP No. 755/2011 on the same date, i.e., 23.6.2011 along with an application for grant

of interim relief and prayed for the same relief which they had earlier sought in the writ petitions (supra) and this court vide order dated 24.06.2011

(annexure R10) directed the parties to maintain status-quo. Private respondents immediately filed objections and questioned the maintainability of

writ petition and also prayed for vacation of status quo order, came up for consideration on 21.7.2011, was adjourned with a direction to list in the

week following next. Private respondents questioned the said order by the medium of LPA No. 194/2011 and came to be stayed vide order dated

30.7.2011 (annexure R12). Again Mohd. Ramzan Bhat, one of the writ petitioners in the above writ petition and a party in LPA No. 194/2011,

filed writ petition in hand and questioned the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Reply has not been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Let the same be filed within two weeks. List thereafter.

CMP No. 1506/2011

Keeping the above said facts in view and the fact that writ petitioner has filed so many writ petitions coupled with the fact that Deputy

Commissioner has passed the order impugned in terms of the directions of this Court and the findings returned by the Deputy Commissioner that

private respondents are filling the land for the purposes of making it cultivable, thus is not violation in terms of Section 133-A of the Act, I am of

the considered view that prima facie case is in favour of private respondents, balance of convenience also tilts in their favour and irreparable loss

will cause to them if they are restrained from going ahead with the filling. It also appears that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands

and has tried to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by the medium of so many writ petitions in order to prevent the private respondents from

making the land cultivable.

This Court in Abdul Karim & others v. State & others, CIMA No. 20/2006, decided on 04.05.2006, has held that a person who comes to the

court within unclean hands and invokes the jurisdiction of different courts for the same relief is not entitled to any relief/ad-interim relief.

In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to dismiss the CMP at this stage and vacate the interim direction passed by this Court dated

02.08.2011. Ordered accordingly.