Dismissed

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary to Government of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bhanu Partap Singh

J&K HC6 Dec 2021LPA/319/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a special leave petition challenging an interlocutory order in a land acquisition dispute. The court rejected the appellant's delay condonation application for filing the appeal, finding the explanation regarding government lapses insufficient and untimely, and barred the appeal for being time-barred by 1008 days.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay rejected; Special Leave Petition dismissed as barred by time.

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 13

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CJ Court

¶4

Case: LPA No. 319 of 2019

¶5

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

¶6

…Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

¶7

Through: Sh. F.A Natnoo, AAG

¶8

V/s

¶9

Bhanu Partap Singh and others

¶10

…. Respondent(s)

¶11

Through: Sh. Nirmal Kotwal, Advocate

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard Sh. F.A Natnoo, AAG for the appellant and Sh. Nirmal Kotwal,

¶16

Advocate for the contesting respondents.

¶17

The appellants have preferred this LPA against the interlocutory order dated 14.12.2016, passed in writ petition OWP No. 188 of 2010.

¶18

The aforesaid order records that the contesting respondents have preferred a writ petition claiming that their land has been utilized and they have been forcibly dispossessed from it without the said land having been acquired and without payment of compensation.

¶19

The Court on consideration of the response filed by one of the respondents to the effect that the predecessors-in-interest of the contesting respondents have donated the land in the year 1962 and 1968 respectively, but

¶20

since such a defence was not supported by any evidence, issued certain directions including the one for convening a meeting of all concerned

¶21

2 LPA No. 319 of 2019

¶22

departments and to take immediate steps for payment of compensation to the petitioners.

¶23

The aforesaid order does not decide any lis between the parties and the writ petition remains to be pending with no effort from either of the side to get it decided expeditiously.

¶24

The office report that the appeal filed is beyond time by 1008 days. The appellants have moved application seeking condonation of the above delay.

¶25

We have gone through the averments made in the above said delay condonation application and find that the appellants had the knowledge of the aforesaid interlocutory order dated 14.12.2016 from the very inception but have not taken any steps for challenging it earlier. It is alleged that it is only in July 2019 when serious lapses were detected at various levels of the Government that a high level committee under the chairmanship of the Commissioner/Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department was constituted to look into the matter and it was decided to file an appeal.

¶26

The delay condonation application is completely silent as to why such a decision to file an appeal could not be taken earlier and why the lapses on part of the officials of the Government could not be detected earlier or before filing response in the writ petition as no such plea of lapse was taken before the writ court.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find the explanation furnished for delay in filing the appeal to be sufficient. The explanation furnished is just to cover up the lapses or negligence on part of the officials and that the decision to file the appeal is simply on afterthought.

¶28

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the delay condonation application and the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time with liberty to the appellants to bring

¶29

3 LPA No. 319 of 2019

¶30

the complete material on record before the writ court and to get it decided on

¶31

merits.

¶32

(SANJAY DHAR) (PANKAJ MITHAL) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶33

Jammu 06.12.2021 Vijay

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary to Government of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bhanu Partap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Chief Secretary to Government of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bhanu Partap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Balwant Kour and Others Vs State of Jk and Others. (Rev. Deptt)

Manzoor Ahmad Syed and Another Vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue)

Ghulam Rasool Bhat Vs State of Jk and Others (Financial Commissioner)

Janak Dulari Vs State Th,J and K Spl.Tribunal and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Padha Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary Education Deptt and Others

Ut of J and K Th Excise Commissioner J and K Jammu and Others Vs Viney Verma and Another