HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CCP(S) No. 333/2021 In OWP No. 1339/2021 c/w OWP No. 1147/2014 IA No. 1548/2014 1. Isher Dass S/o Late Sh. Badrinath R/o H. No. 235, Patoli Magotrian, Tehsil and District Jammu. 2. Ram Prakash Mangotra S/o Late Sh. Vidhya Dhar Mangotra H. No. 94, Patoli Mangotrian, Jammu. 3. Shiv Kumar S/o Lt. Bal Krishan Mangotra R/o H. No. 105 Patoli Mangotrian, Jammu. 4. Rajesh Kumar Mangotra S/o Late. Bal Krishan Mangotra, R/o H. No. 105, Patoli Mangotrian, Jammu. 5. Vinod Mangotra S/o Late Bal Krishan Mangotra R/o H. No. 105, Patoli Mangotrian, Jammu. …..Appellants Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Rahul Raina, Advocate Vs 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary J&K Government Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Commissioner/Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu 4. Tehsildar Jammu 5. Jammu Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Jammu 6. Commissioner, Jammu Municipal Corporation, Town Hall, Jammu 7. Joint Commissioner,(A) Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu. 8. Chief Executive Officer, Jammu Municipal Corporation, Town Hall, Jammu 9. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu .…. Respondents Through: Mr. Harshwardhan Gupta, Advocate Ms.Chetna Manhas, Advocate vice Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG Sr. No. 20 2 OWP No. 1147/2014 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 18.08.2025 OWP No. 1147/2014 1. The petitioners, through the medium of present petition have challenged communication No. MJ/Xen/P/C/8-12 dated 16.07.2014 whereby, Municipal Corporation, Jammu has sought police protection from Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu for taking up the execution of work of fencing of Patoli Park at Patoli Chowk, Ward No. 35, Jammu. A writ of prohibition restraining the respondent-Jammu Municipal Corporation from raising any construction upon the said piece of land measuring 08 kanals 06 kanals falling under khasra No. 212 (77-old) situated at village Patoli Magotrian, Jammu has also been sought with a further direction that the respondents should allocate to the petitioners their shares out of the aforesaid land or in alternative, to adhere to the procedure as prescribed under Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the said land. 2. According to the petitioners, land measuring 08 kanal 16 marlas falling under khasra No. 212-new (77-old) at village Patoli Mangotrian is in their peaceful possession along with other local residents of the area. It has been submitted that the land in question came to the share of forefathers of the petitioners being members of the Mangotrian Biradari and the said land was being utilized for various religious and social purposes. It has been submitted that at one point of time, the land in question was attempted to be encroached upon by land grabbers however, due to strong opposition of the petitioners and their forefathers, it was prevented. It has been submitted that in the year, 2007, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners approached respondent No. 4 for demarcation of the land and when nothing was done in the matter, the Revenue Minister was approached by the petitioners. It has been further submitted that vide report dated 3 OWP No. 1147/2014 18.08.2007 prepared by the Patwari concerned, the land has been shown as “Gair Mumkin Talab” “Shamlaat Deh” under the possession of the petitioners and as per report of the said Patwari, the petitioners are entitled to shares in the said land on pro rata basis. Even as per the latest revenue record, the petitioners are shown to be in possession of land measuring 06 kanals 08 marlas out of the aforesaid land. 3. It has been submitted that respondent No. 5-Jammu Municipal Corporation is threatening to raise construction on the land in question by claiming that the said land is vested in it in terms of the J&K Municipal Corporation, Act, 2000. It has been further submitted that even if the land in question is needed for public purposes, the petitioners are entitled to compensation. It has been submitted that the petitioners had filed a writ petition bearing OWP No. 1399/2012 before this Court agitating their grievance, which came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 19.09.2012 whereby it was provided that in the event, the land in question is to be utilized by the respondents for any public purpose and it is found that the land belongs to the petitioners or any other interested persons, then, the respondents shall follow the procedure established by law in acquiring the land and shall be under an obligation to pay compensation to the owners or other interested persons. 4. It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions, no construction was raised on the spot by the respondents. However, recently, the respondent-Corporation has again raised construction of plinth and when the officers of the Corporation were approached by the petitioners, it was found that the impugned communication has been addressed by respondent No. 7 to respondent No. 9 seeking police protection for raising construction on spot. It has been submitted that as per report dated 15.07.2014 prepared by the Tehsildar concerned, the land in question clearly belongs to the petitioners. 4 OWP No. 1147/2014 5. Respondent-Municipal Corporation, in its reply to the writ petition, has submitted that the land in question was public pond for storage of water for public purposes and for the benefit of general public (Gair Mumkin Talab). It has been submitted that water from the said pond was being used by the residents of Patoli Mangotrian. According to the respondent-Municipal Corporation, the land in question vests with it, previously in terms of Section 57 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2008 and now in terms of Section 154 of the J&K Municipal Corporation Act. It has been submitted that in terms of these provisions, all public tanks and land appertaining to its vests in the Municipality. 6. It has been submitted that with the passage of time, the pond was not being used and the public started throwing garbage in it and it became a breeding ground for flies and mosquitoes thereby causing health hazard. It has been submitted that on public demand, the Jammu Municipal Corporation filled up the pond for developing it as a park for the welfare of the public at large but the petitioners in order to grab the property made an application for permission to raise construction on the spot. The permission was refused vide order dated 04.01.2002. It has been submitted that the petitioners have filed an appeal against the said order before the J&K Special Tribunal and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 24.04.2006 and the respondent- Corporation was directed to take up the Building permission case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order, whereafter, the Building permission Authority considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it vide order dated 24.04.2006 and 10.08.2006. 7. It has been submitted that a suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondent-Corporation before the Municipal Magistrate, Jammu seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of land in question by claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the said land. It has been 5 OWP No. 1147/2014 submitted that at the interim stage, the parties were directed to maintain status quo on spot and later on, when the respondent- Corporation filed its written statement, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.03.2012. 8. It has been contended that the petitioners are neither owners nor in possession of the suit property which was a public pond and hence, its ownership is vested with the respondent- Corporation. Thus, according to the respondent-Corporation, the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the property in question. It has been submitted that the respondent-Corporation is constructing a park and other public utility infrastructure at the site so that the land in question can be properly used and it is prevented from being used as a dumping ground of garbage. 9. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 the-revenue authorities have filed reply to the writ petition in which it has been submitted that after the settlement in the year, 2006-07, land falling under khasra No. 212 has been carved out of khasra No. 77 and the land measuring 06 kanals 08 marlas in the said khasra number has been recorded as Shamlaat Taraf Brahmana Hasab Rasad Khewat in ownership column and maqbooza malikaan in cultivation column, kind of soil is recorded as Banjar Qadeem. It has been submitted that the land in question is common land. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the record of the case. 11. A perusal of the revenue record placed on record by the petitioners along with their writ petition clearly indicates that the land in question is Shamlaat land and initially, the kind of soil was reflected as “Gair Mumkin Talab”. The said position continued up to Rabi, 1999. It seems that as per the latest khasra girdawari, kind of soil has been shown as Banjar Qadeem. From this, it is clear that initially, the land in question was recorded as public pond. 6 OWP No. 1147/2014 12. As per the provision of Section 57 of J&K Municipal Act, 2000, all public streams, springs and works for the supply, storage and distribution of water for public purposes vest in the Municipality. A similar provision Section 154 is available in J&K Municipal Corporation Act as well. Prior to establishment of Jammu Municipal Corporation, the Jammu Municipality was governed by J&K Municipal Act. By virtue of the provisions contained in Section 57 of the Municipal Act and thereafter, by virtue of Section 154 of J&K Municipal Corporation Act, all storage and distribution of water for public purposes vest in the Jammu Municipality/Jammu Municipal Corporation. Thus, the land in question which was recorded as Public Pond (Gair Mumkin Talab) vested with Jammu Municipality/Jammu Municipal Corporation. Even though later on, the pond was filled up by respondent-Corporation in order to avoid health hazards, as a result of which kind of soil has changed to “Banjar Qadeem” yet the fact of the matter remains that the said land had already vested in Jammu Municipal Corporation. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that because it is “Shamlaat land” and, as such, they have pro-rata share in the said land is not tenable. Once, by operation of law, the land in question has already vested in Jammu Municipal Corporation, there is no question of vesting of title in respect of the said land in favour of the petitioners. Their contention is without any merit. 13. Apart from above, the respondent-Corporation intends to use the land for development of park for public purposes. Once, the park is developed on the spot, it would be for the benefit of the petitioners who are residents of the area. Causing any obstruction to such project by the petitioners would not be in their own interest. On this ground also, the respondent- Corporation cannot be stopped from executing the construction of public park on the spot. 7 OWP No. 1147/2014 14. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed, accordingly. CCP(S) No. 333/2021 15. This contempt petition arises out of interim order dated 22.08.2014 passed in the main writ petition. Since the main writ petition has been dismissed by virtue of the order passed today, as such, the interim order dated 22.08.2014 has merged with the final order passed in the writ petition. 16. The contempt proceedings, therefore, do not survive. The same are, accordingly, closed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE JAMMU 18.08.2025 Tarun/PS Whether the order is speaking? Yes Whether the order is reportable? No Tarun Kumar Gupta 2025.08.28 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document