MOHD. RAMZAN SHAH & ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 29-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

rl 
MOHD. RAMZAN SHAH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU &·KASHMIR & ORS. 
JANUARY 29, 1988 
[G.L. OZA AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Jammu and Kashmir (Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1959: Sections 4, 5 and 6 
A 
B 
Jammu and Kashmir Land Grants Act, 1960: Section 12-A 
'Wasidari lands' transferred in contravention of Ailan JO dated 7 C 
Bhadon 1976 and Land Grants Act 1960-Notice for eviction of un-
authorised occupant-Validity of-Compensation-Person evicted-
Entitled to compensation in respect of buildings structures and 
improvements-Not in respect of land. 
The suit premises consisting of lands and buildings were originally 
D 
owned by Dewan Bishen Dass a former Prime Minister of the State of 
Jam mu and Kashmir. The appellants purchased the same from his 
successor-in-interest, Purnish Chandra by two sale deeds dated 
12. 7 .1967 and 8.12.1967. 
The State Government tried to resume the land for setting up a 
E 
tonga and lorry stand, and for the purpose of development of the city, 
and eviction of the appellants was ordered by the Estate Officer under 
the provision of the Jammu and Kashmir (Public Premises Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1959 on January 5, 1968. The Munici-
pality took forcible possession of the land and demolished the buildings 
thereon on January 11, 1968. The appellants tiled a Writ Petition in the 
F 
High Court assailing the action of the Municipality. 
The High Court on 19.7.1969 allowed the writ petition and held 
that the appellants were not unauthorised_ occupants, possession can be 
taken only on payment of compensation and that Section 5 of the 
Jammu and Kashmir (Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act was ultra vires. The State appealed to this Court and 
the judgment of the High Court was confirmed on the sole ground that 
as the Administrator of the Municipality had not complied with the 
provisions of section 238 and 239 of the Municipal Act the action taken 
by the Municipality in the matter of demolishing must be held to be 
entirely illegal and contrary to law, [Stare of Jammu and Kashmir v. 
853 
G 
H 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) 2 S.C.R. 
A HajiWaliMohammad&Ors., [1973) 1SCR801). 
The Estate Officer thereafter issued a fresh notice under section 
4(1) of the amended Jammu and Kashmir (Public Premises Eviction of 
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1959 intimating that the appellants were 
B in unauthorised occupation of the public premises mentioned in the 
Schedule to the notice. The appellants tiled objections stating that they 
were not in unauthorised occupation of the said land nor have they 
encroached upon the same, and that the notice was wholly misconceived 
and illegal. It was further contended that the land was purchased by the 
appellants from the legal heirs of Dewan Bishen Dass, that they had 
been in continuous possession, made various improvements on the land 
C and built houses, and that the Estate Officer could not declare the 
person in possession as an unauthorised occupants after lapse of more 
than 80 years. 
The Estate Officer rejected the objections and directed the appel-
D lants to handover possession of the premises including structures to the· 
Administrator of the Minicipality. 
The appellants preferred an appeal to the District Judge but the 
same was dismissed. 
E 
The order of the Estate Officer was also challenged in a writ 
petition by the appellants, but the same was dismissed by the High 
Court holding that the land being transferred by the legal heirs of 
Dewan Bishen Dass without obtaining prior permission of the Govern-
ment or the competent authority in that behalf, the lease stood deter-
mined and that the notice under the Jammu and Kashmir (Public 
F 
Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1959 was in accor-
dance with law. 
In the appeal to this Court by Special Leave it was contended on 
behalf of the appellants: that the lands taken on lease by Dewan Bishen 
Dass cannot be deemed to have been taken under the provisions of Ailan 
G No. to dated 7 Bhadon 1976 and as such section 12(A) and section 6 of 
the Land Grants Act 1960 are not applicable, that the lands could not be 
acquired without providing for adequate compensation to be paid to the 
Wasidar for the buildings, appurtenances and other improvements 
effected by him, that no compensation in fact was awarded and that the 
notice under section 4 of the Act was liable to be cancelled and quashed 
H as being not in accordance wi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.