Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3441 (JK)

KULWANT KOUR v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

WP(C)/1261/2021 · 2025-08-20

Sanjay Dhar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP (C) No. 1261/2021 CM No. 6512/2023 CM No. 5149/2021 CM No. 55150/2021 C/W CCP (S) No. 193/2024 Kulwant Kour …..Appellants Through: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate Vs UT of J&K Th Secretary Revenue Department .…. Respondents Through: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Mr. G. S. Thakur, Advocate in CCP (S) No. 193/2024 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 20.08.2025 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition, have sought direction upon respondents prohibiting them from converting land bearing Khasra Nos. 50 and 51 of Village Nihalpur Simbal, Tehsil R. S. Pura, District Jammu from common land to any other use. A further direction commanding the respondents to implement Govt. Order No. Rev/Lit/218 of 2011 dated 28.11.2011 has also been sought with a direction that the common lands including the water bodies be restored in the aforesaid village. 2. The case of petitioners is that they are residents of village Nihalpur Simbal Camp, Tehsil R. S Pura where they have constructed their houses and are residing over there. It has been submitted that the petitioners are using water bodies i.e. Chapper (Water Pond) and Cha (Well), in Khasra Nos. 50 and 51 of the said Sr. No. 9 WP (C) No. 1261/2021 CM No. 6512/2023 CM No. 5149/2021 CM No. 55150/2021 C/W CCP (S) No. 193/2024 village from times immemorial but some elements are trying to grab these water bodies and are trying to encroach upon the common land. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioners had approached respondent No. 4 through the written representation dated 12.02.2020, complaining that certain people had forcibly captured the common land under reference but no action is being taken by the said respondent. It has been further submitted that other respondents were also approached by the petitioners but without any success. 4. It has also been submitted that even the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu was approached by the petitioners, but despite his directions, no action was taken by the respondents on spot as a result of which, the common land of the village including the water bodies are under the threat of encroachment from certain vested interests. 5. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition in which the status of the land in question as being common land has not been disputed by them. However, the stand of the respondents is that pursuant to the interim directions from this Court, field staff was asked to visit the spot and to remove illegal constructions. It has been submitted that the field staff after visiting the spot stopped the construction and no fresh construction has been allowed since then. 6. Heard and considered. WP (C) No. 1261/2021 CM No. 6512/2023 CM No. 5149/2021 CM No. 55150/2021 C/W CCP (S) No. 193/2024 7. This Court while entertaining the writ petition had passed an interim direction whereby, the respondents were directed to ensure that no construction shall be raised in the common land i.e. Gair Mumkin Chapper (water pond) and Cha (well) in Khasra Nos. 50 and 51 situated at Village Nihalpur, Simbal Ward No. 2, Tehsil R. S. Pura, District Jammu. 8. Having regard to the stand taken by the respondents, the writ petition can be disposed of at this stage in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 01.07.2025, with the further a direction that the respondents shall ensure that if any construction has been raised on the aforesaid property, the same shall be removed after hearing the affected parties in accordance with law. Ordered, accordingly. CCP (S) No. 193/2024 9. Since the main writ petition has been disposed of today, interim order out of which the present contempt proceedings arise has merged with the final order passed by this Court. The contempt proceedings are, therefore, closed leaving it open to the petitioners to file a fresh contempt petition, in case the final directions passed in the writ petition are violated by the respondents. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 20.08.2025 Mahavir