1 S. No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Reserved on 19.03.2025 Pronounced on 25.04.2025 WP(C) No. 1997/2024 Inhabitants of Village Armulla and Ors. …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. T. A. Lone, Advocate. Vs. UT of J&K and Ors. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rais ud din Ganaie, Dy.AG Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners herein in a representative capacity on behalf of the inhabitants of village Armulla, Nowpora Bala, Alawpora Chidren, Arampore, Akhrajpora, Lassipora, Rakh Chidren, Tehsil and District Pulwama and application filed in this regard being CM No.5363/2024 has been maintained for seeking leave of the Court to file and prosecute the petition in representative capacity which application stands allowed by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 and notice directed to be published thereof in two daily newspapers having wide circulation in the area concerned. 2. While considering the instant petition on 04.09.2024, this Court directed orders impugned in the instant petition be kept in abeyance while further restraining the leasing out of the land covered in Survey No.752 and amongst the impugned orders is order No.SIDCO/ROK/2022 dated 16.07.2022 in terms whereof land measuring 15 kanals falling under Survey No.752 situated at Industrial Growth Centre Lassipora Pulwama was allotted to M/s Dream Agro Integrated Cold Chain, being respondent 12 herein for establishment of a Cold Storage Facility and being aggrieved of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 04.09.2024, said respondent 12 herein filed a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No.311/2024, in 2 which LPA the Division Bench vide order dated 13.11.2024 declined to interfere with the order under challenge dated 04.09.2024 noting that the order is an ex-parte interim order, however, disposed of the said appeal with the following observations: - “We, however, request the learned writ court to take up the application for interim application for consideration on 27.11.2024. By that time, the appellant herein shall file objections as also the application for vacation of stay. We hope that in case any such objections are filed by the appellant and the application for vacation of stay is moved, the Writ Court will make an endeavor to consider the same on the next date of hearing”. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench dated 13.11.2024, respondent 12 herein filed objections to the instant petition as also an application for vacation of interim order being CM No.7600/2024. 4. On 09.12.2024 when the matter came up for consideration before this Court, last and final opportunity of two weeks was granted to counsel for the petitioners/non-applicants to file objections to the said CM 7600/2024 with a rider that in case of failure, the application would be considered on the next date of hearing. However on 16.12.2024, when the matter again came up for consideration, yet again four weeks last and final opportunity was granted to the respondents in the writ petition for filing objections thereto besides granting further last and final opportunity of four weeks to counsel for the petitioners to file objections to the said CM 7600/2024. 5. On 17.02.2025, when the matter came up for consideration before this Court after noticing the failure of the respondents in the writ petition other than respondent 12 herein for having not filed objections to the petition as also the failure of the counsel for the petitioners/non- applicants in filing objections to the said CM No.7600/2024, the matter was ordered to be listed for consideration on 19.02.2025 with a direction to counsel appearing for the respondents other than respondent 12 to keep the record pertaining to the case available on the next date of hearing whereafter the matter came up for consideration and was heard on 19.02.2025, 21.02.2025, 25.02.2025, 18.03.2025 and was heard finally and arguments concluded by arguing counsel for the parties on 19.03.2025 and the matter was reserved for judgment/orders. 3 6. The petitioners herein have challenged communication bearing No.DCP/LA/COLL/2023/472-73 dated 16.12.2023 addressed by the Deputy Commissioner Pulwama being respondent 5 herein to Tehsildar Shahoora, Litter being respondent 7 herein directing him to attest mutation in favour of the J&K SIDCO of land measuring 689 kanals 10 marlas in Estate Armulla Teshil Shahoora, Litter Pulwama out of which land measuring 203 kanals 10 marlas are Shamilat Deh land falling under Survey No.752. The petitioners herein besides, throwing challenge to the said communication dated 16.12.2023 have also impugned order No.SIDCO/ROK/2022 dated 16.07.2022 supra issued by respondent SIDCO whereby the land measuring 15 kanals falling under Survey No.752 situated at Industrial Growth Centre Lassipora, Pulwama stands allotted in favour of the respondent 12 herein for establishment of Cold Storage Facility. 7. The petitioners herein while maintaining the instant petition have thrown challenge to the aforesaid impugned communication/orders primarily on ground that the land in question being Shamilat Deh Land is as good as proprietary land of villagers of the petitioners village on pro-rata basis as such, the said land cannot be transferred in the way it has been transferred by respondent 5, without compensating the villagers of the petitioners villages. 8. Reply to the petition has been filed by respondent 12 wherein it has been stated that with an intention of establishment of Controlled Atmosphere Store of 500 Mts, the said respondent applied for and came to be allotted 15 kanals of land at Industrial Growth Centre Lassipora Pulwama, by SIDCO pursuant to the decision of a High Level Land Allotment Committee dated 30.12.2021, whereupon the allotment was formally sanctioned by SIDCO vide order No.SIDCO- ROK/2022 dated 16.07.2022 impugned in the instant petition whereafter a lease deed was also executed and registered subsequently on 27.09.2023 and 03.10.2023 respectively, consequent to which the possession of land was handed over to the said respondent 12 on 04.11.2023 and construction thereupon the said land was initiated which construction, however, met with resistance from certain locals 4 of area compelling the respondent 12 to file a suit for Permanent Injunction before the Court of Munsiff Pulwama, which court vide order dated 04.07.2024 restrained the defendants therein the said suit from interfering with the construction work or possession of land except by following due process. It is further stated in the reply filed by respondent 12 that in retaliation to the filing of said suit, counter suit was filed by some of the inhabitants of nearby villages before the Court of Sub-Judge, Pulwama contending therein the said suit that the land allotted to respondent 12 herein had been verbally promised by the official of the Govt. to be used for as a playground, however, notably, the SIDCO was not impleaded as party in the said suit and though an order of status-quo initially was passed by the said court of Sub-Judge Pulwama on 11.07.2024 in the said suit, the said order, however, was subsequently vacated on 12.08.2024 upon an application filed by the respondent 12 herein. It is further stated by respondent 12 herein in the reply that the petitioners herein being alive to the fact having filed the aforesaid counter suit before the Sub-Judge Pulwama concealed the same while maintaining the instant petition while challenging the order of allotment dated 16.07.2022 and that the instant petition appears to be a case of sponsored litigation filed for mala-fide intentions by the petitioners herein. It has been further stated by respondent 12 herein in the reply that the construction of cold storage upon the land in question involves use of state-of-the-art technology and could potentially impact the business operation of certain already established cold stores existing in the area more so, in that, it is only the respondent 12 herein who has been specifically targeted in the petition while other similarly situated industrial units located on the plots of land surrounding the plot of land allotted to respondent 12 herein have not been impleaded as party respondents in the petition. It has been lastly stated in the reply filed by respondent 12 herein that the petitioners herein lacks locus standi to challenge the impugned order dated 16.07.2022, in that, the said land is part of the 5 Industrial Growth Centre Lassipora Pulwama, which stands transferred to the SIDCO by the Government specifically for establishment of industrial units, as such, the petitioners cannot be said to have any legal standing to question the impugned order of allotment, more so, for the reasons that the land in question has been designated for industrial use under Government policy. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The official respondents as noticed in the preceding paras have not filed reply to the petition which necessitated summoning of the original record pertaining to the case in hand, which record has been produced by counsel appearing for the official respondents. 10. A closer examination of the said record shows that on 27.07.1984 respondent 1 herein vide order No.Rev(LAK) 139 of 1984, allotted State land measuring 3461 kanals and 5 marlas situated at Lassipora Pulwama in favour of respondent SIDCO whereafter the respondent SIDCO made a requisition to acquire additional land from various villages including the village of Armulla, where the total land proposed for acquisition comprised of 735 kanals and 2 marlas, out of which land 26 kanals 19 marks consisted of State land, 15 kanals 16 marlas proprietary land, 2 kanals 18 marlas as Section 5 Shamilat Deh land and 689 kanals and 10 marlas as Section 4 Shamilat Deh land. 11. Record would further reveal that in terms of communication dated 19.02.1986 addressed by respondent 5 herein to respondent 3 herein a Committee as per SRO 419 of 1981 had been constituted by the Government along with representative from SIDCO and some local respectable persons for negotiating with the land owners in the year 1985 wherein compensation rates for the land in question came to be fixed at Rs.56,91,942/- and while most of the land owners accepted the said rates through private negotiations, a few of them had approached to the civil court and based upon the urgency expressed by respondent SIDCO, the respondent 3 herein came to be requested to transfer 919 kanals and 19 marlas of State land to SIDCO which 6 consequently came to be done vide Government order No.Rev(LAK)- GR-83 of 1986 dated 09.05.1986. 12. 12. Record would further tend to show that a dispute over the Shamilat Deh land had arisen when the villagers of village Armulla filed a suit before the Sub-Judge Shopian seeking compensation for 689 kanals 10 marlas of land falling under Survey No.503 being Section 4 Shamilat land which suit had been decreed in ex-parte by the said court on 12.06.1995 directing the State to pay compensation qua the said land to the plaintiffs in the suit on pro-rata basis while restraining the defendants in the suit from disbursing the compensation in favour of the Panchayat, in response whereof another suit had been filed by the State against the said ex-parte judgment dated 12.06.1995 however, the said suit filed by the State came to be dismissed on 09.07.2001 for being not maintainable. 13. Record would also reveal that a Survey of the area have had been conducted by the official respondents in the year 2008 resulting into revision of record of rights and consequently the Shamilat land previously recorded under Survey Nos. 503 and 513 came to be assigned new Survey Nos. being 743 and 752 respectively. 14. As is manifest above, notwithstanding the grievances of the petitioners projected in the instant petition that the land in question stands transferred by virtue of impugned communication/orders without proper acquisition, the record produced by official respondents clearly contradicts the said claim of the petitioners. It is significant to mention here that a copy of the aforesaid original record produced by counsel for the official respondents though was provided to counsel for the petitioners as well during the hearing of instant petition, who too was unable to identify and point out any illegality in the process of allotment of land made by the official respondents in favour of the respondent 12 herein and given the fact that the land in question stands acquired over 3 decades ago and the possession thereof transferred to SIDCO long ago and have been consequently allotted to various unit holders including the respondent 12 herein, no fault whatsoever can be attributed to the respondent 12 herein in the direction for attestation of mutation of 7 land in question ordered in favour of respondent SIDCO by virtue of impugned communication dated 16.12.2023. 15. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the petition lacks merit. 16. The petition accordingly is dismissed along with connected applications and interim order dated 04.09.2024 vacated. However, the dismissal of the petition shall not stand in the way of petitioners herein from seeking compensation qua the land if they are otherwise entitled to the same under law, in appropriate proceedings before an appropriate forum. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 25.04.2025 Ishaq Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether approved for reporting ? Yes Ram Krishan 2025.05.05 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document