LexGHULAM NABI DAR & ORS. versus STATE OF J&K & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 881 GHULAM NABI DAR & ORS. v. STATE OF J&K & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.6-7 of 2013) JANUARY 3, 2013 [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 - s. 6 - Notification published under, C declaring lands under the possession of appellants to be vested in the Custodian of Evacuee Property - Whether vitiated - Held, Yes, since the appellants had been denied an opportunity of explaining that they were not mere occupants of the property in question, but tenants thereof, in D which case, neither r. 9 nor r. 13-C of the 2008 Rules had any application to the facts of the case - Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Rules, 2008 - rr. 9 and 13C. Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of E Property) Act, 2006 - s. 16 - Protection under - When available - Held: It is available only in respect of evacuee property after a determination to such effect is made - A unilateral declaration is clearly opposed to the principles of natural justice and administrative fair play and cannot be F supported. Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 2006 - s. 6 - Notification issued under the Act, declaring the land in question to be evacuee property - G Occupants claiming to be tenants-at-will of the said land since before the Act came to be enacted, filed writ petition praying inter alia that the said notification be quashed - Writ petition before High Court - Out of Court settlement entered into 881 H 882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A between the parties and filed before the High Court - Occupants of the lands in question had surrendered part of the land in favour of the Custodian of Evacuee property while remaining in possession of the remaining part of the land, which were to be settled with them - Pursuant to the B Settlement, the State authorities raised constructions on the surrendered lands - But later took the stand that the Settlement stood vitiated on account of non-compliance with r. 13C - Held: The Settlement was lawful and within the scope of Sub-Rule (3) of Or. 23 CPC - The special facts of the case c set the present Agreement/Settlement apart from the cases of grant of lease of vacant lands in terms of r. 13C - Since the lands were not vacant, the very first criterion of r. 13C, was not satisfied and the lease of the lands were to be granted as part of the settlement packet, which included surrender of 22 D kanals of prime land - r. 13C had no application to the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the same was not, therefore, vitiated for not putting the lands to auction to determine the premium to be paid for the leases to be granted in respect thereof - It was nobody's case that the Settlement E was the outcome of any fraud or was unlawful and the same, having been signed and acted upon, was binding on the parties and could not be withdrawn unilaterally - Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Rules, 2008 - r. 13C. F On 21-11-1980, the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Jammu and Kashmir, issued a Notification under Section 6 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 2006, declaring the land in question to be evacuee property. Persons claiming to G be in poss¢>sion of the said land in the capacity of tenants-at-will since before the aforesaid Act came to be enacted, tned writ petition praying inter alia that the said notification dated 21-11-1980 be quashed. During pendency: of the writ petition, the High Court restrained H the respondents from raising any construction on the GHULAM NABI DAR & ORS. v. STATE OF J&K & 883 ORS. spot. Aggrieved, the Custodian of Evacuee Property filed A LPA. While the matters were pending, an out of court settlement was ultimately arrived at between the parties which was submitted before the Court. · After filing the Settlement in Court and asking the Court to take action thereupon, an application was made on behalf of the Custodian of Evacuee Property for leave B to withdraw the settlement on the ground that the Chief Minister had reversed the earlier decision taken on 27/ 28th March, 2005 and, that, accordingly, the deponent, in C the affidavit, was not competent to enter into the Settlement with the occupants of the evacuee property, as the decision to do so
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.