Thakur Divakar Singh vs State of J&K and Others

The case of the petitioner is that Jammu Municipality has occupied his proprietry land for construction of 22 lanes in Nowabad, Jammu without

payment of any compensation. The relief claimed by him is that respondents be directed to acquire the land and pay him the compensation.

The following facts admitted by the petitioner will reveal the frivolous nature of this petition:

On 2881984, the petitioner had addressed letter (AnnexureE) to the Administrator, Municipality Jammu claiming compensation of land

measuring 5 Kanals and 218 Sq ft. Paras 1, 2, 3, 7 of this letter read as follows :

That applicant is the absolute owner of land comprising Khasra No. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85 and 84 situated at Nowabad

Jammu within the Municipal Limits. The land stands recorded in the ownership rights of the applicant in the Revenue Records concerned.

That about 22 pucca lanes were laid upon the above said land and these lanes covered a total area of 5 Kanals and218Sft.

Since the land was acquired for public utility so applicant did not object to the acquisition, however, asked for the amount of compensation to

be determined and paid for the land acquired.

A copy of site plan showing the land and roads laid down by the above said departments is also attached with the memorandum (Annexure 2).

So the petitioner was the owner of about 48 Kanals of land in Nowabad, Jammu. It is admitted by him that a residential colony has come up upon

the entire land which was once owned by him. This residential colony was in existence in the year 1984 when he approached the Administrator,

Municipality for compensation. It means he carved out the residential plots and sold the same to different persons. Nobody purchases the plot

unless there is a passage to reach the place from public road. So it was in order to sell the residential plots that he kept these lanes. Once the

residential houses were constructed demand of the residents of the colony for meeting the lanes and to provide water outlets could not be ignored

by the Municipality. Even otherwise the Municipality only maintains the existing lanes and the drains, which is one of its main responsibility. The

Municipality has not to provide the roads and passages to the houses but if these are provided by the colonizers, it is the duty of the Municipality to

maintain them. The petitioner has suppressed the real facts that he carved out residential plots and then sold them after providing lanes and

passages. The Municipality has only to maintain the lanes which were provided to the plots. The moment he sold the plots the lanes and passages

became a common property of those for whom it was provided. The fact that the petitioner has carved out a number of residential plots in the

afore said land is established by the letter dated 811975 written by the then Vice Chairman, Jammu Development Authority, Jammu which reads

as follows:

The Jammu Development Authority, Durbargarh,Jammu1

No. 892425 dated 8 January, 1975.

To

Shri Dawakar Singh, MLA

Kachi Chhowni,

Jammu.

Sub: Sale of land at Nouabad (Talab Tillo) Jammu.

Dear Sir,

It has come to the notice of this Authority that you carved out a number of residential plots of various sizes over your land situated at Nauabad

(Talab Tillo) without obtaining prior approval for the same from this Authority and thereafter sold them to various persons.

A number of building permission cases of this area have been received in this office for accord of clearance, which is not possible to be accorded

in absence of the proper overall layout plan of the area.

You are, therefore, requested to please furnish an overall lay out plan of the said area, to enable this authority to process the building permission

cases accordingly for accord of clearance.

Yours faithfully

Sd/

Vice Chairman.

So the petitioner had carved out these plots some time prior to 1975. Nobody would purchase the plots unless it is linked with the public road or

Public street. The Jammu Municipality has thus no obligation to provide lanes to those who had purchased plots from the petitioner. In fact these

lanes were part of the colony and became the property of the owners, because the moment he sold the plots he lost his ownership over the lanes

leading to those houses. Suprression of facts in this case is deliberate because had he provided the layout plan of the said area to the Vice

Chairman, JDA the position would be clarified as to how many lanes were provided by him. He has suppressed this fact in this petition because the

layout plan is not disclosed. Moreover the petition is barred by latches and delay because first of all he preferred the claim in 1984 and thereafter

he served a notice through Advocate on 2581986, claiming compensation for the same. This petition has been filed 14 years after he wrote the

letter dated 2881984 and almost after 20 years after the lanes provided by him for the colony were constructed by the Municipality. The petition

is, therefore, liable to be dismissed because of latches and delay, which has not been explained. In Jagdish Lal V/s State of Haryana (AIR 1997

SC 2366) the Apex Court observed:

This court has repeatedly held, the delay disentitles the party to the discretionary relief under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution. It is not

necessary to reiterate all catena of precedents in this behalf.

Similarly in Rao Somashekara and Ors vs. State of Karnataka and another ((1997) 7 SCC 649) it was held that inordinate delay disentitles a party

to the relief even under Article 32 of the constitution of India.

It was next argued that the petitioner's representations have not been decided. However, in State of Haryana and others V/s Ajay Walia

((1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 255) it was held:

Representations repeatedly given to various authorities do not furnish a fresh cause of action to file a writ petition. The High Court was wholly

unjustified to have entertained and allowed the writ petition.

So the filing of representations does not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner.

Moreover the petitioner has parted with the possession of this land in favour of those whom the plots carved out by him were sold and not in

favour of the Municipality. He had thus surrendered his right over the land in favour of the residents of the colony to whom the plots were sold by

him. The Municipality has only to discharge its civic responsibility may be even at the request of the residents of the area. These lanes are today

Municipal lanes because of the usage and not because of the acquisition because as a civic body of the Municipality only maintains the Municipal

lanes and roads without acquiring the property. Assuming that the Municipality has provided these lanes though it was not its obligation, the

petitioner is out of possession more than 20 years and as such, has lost his right. The period of limitation of filing even a civil suit for possession has

also expired. So the claim made by the petitioner preposterous and the grounds on which the relief is founded are frivolous. It is dismissed

accordingly.